Now, I would like to discuss syscalls. As my kernel is binarily compatible with Linux, it implements the same syscalls on the same vector (0x80, I've not yet implemented sysenter-like things, and as mentionned earlier, it currently only runs on x86/32). Of course, not all of them have been reimplemented (keyctl(8), for example, proudly returns -ENOSYS), but the implemented ones are faithfully following the Linux specification.
Well, nearly. That is, besides potential bugs (and unimplemented features), I have done one notable modification, to the uname(2) syscall. When I initially wrote my kernel, I ran into some trouble with the glibc : it kept telling me that my kernel was too old. That's because, in its Linux version, it checks that the kernel version number is at least 2.2.5 - without checking that the OS's *name* is actually "Linux". Thus, when I answered "Manux, version 0.0.0", I never got anything working. Of course, I could have proposed a patch to the glibc, but : - This would have done nothing for statically-linked programs; - In addition, it's highly likely other programs are doing similar checks, and would have failed for a similar reason. Thus, I decided to fake a Linux-like answer on this syscall, and implement another syscall where I could put what I wanted. In practice, I currently identify myself as "Linux 2.6.35" through uname(2), but "Manux 0.0.5" through my uname_vect(2) syscall. Is it okay to do this? Do you have any objections or remarks? Thank you, Emmanuel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
