On 04/17/16 19:37, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> It seems like one of the main problems with syscall() is that it forces
> userspace to handle weird ABI issues, such as syscall numbers varying by
> architecture, encoding of 64-bit arguments on 32-bit platforms (see the
> example in the syscall manpage), and other subtleties that will break on
> architectures other than the one the developer is most likely to be
> running. libinux bindings would eliminate those issues.
>
> What cases do you have in mind where the libinux binding should look
> different than the C API of the SYSCALL_DEFINE'd function in the kernel?
>
> Users can still call the libc syscall when they want libc's behavior;
> for syscalls that have a libc binding, most users will want that
> version. But I've often needed to call the underlying syscall even for
> syscalls that *do* have a libc binding, for various purposes, and having
> a standard way to do that while still having safe type signatures seems
> helpful.
>
> This would also make it much easier to write an alternative libc, or a
> language standard library that doesn't want to depend on libc.
>
The main problem has to do with types, and the fact that the C library
may want to intersperse itself around system calls. If people start
writing programs that call, say, __linux_umask() then it would make it
hard for libc to do something special with umask().
There are other things like it, e.g. where dev_t and __kernel_dev_t are
concerned.
Now, we could of course have __linux_getrandom() and make a weak alias
for getrandom(), but I really don't understand the use case for
exporting all the system calls.
-hpa
