On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: >> We should avoid arch_prctl because glibc won't add a syscall stub that >> libgcc or whatever would want? My mind boggles. > > Please turn brain on before posting.
Brain was on. > > Of course they would add it. But only in the next version. Which means > everyone using older glibc would be out of luck. So all the users > would be stuck using syscall(). Anything you may gain in the kernel > would be totally made up by that. > ISTM libmpx shouldn't link against glibc at all -- what if libmpx users want to use an alternate runtime (musl, Go, etc.)? But I decided to check whether libmpx links against glibc, and I can't find sources for it at all. Do they exist? Is there any code with source available that invokes this prctl? If not, I personally have very little sympathy for the argument that a binary buried in the depths of the Intel SDE would need to change if we switched to using arch_prctl. And I think that it should issue the syscall itself without using glibc, in which case the syscall wrapper issue is moot. --Andy > BTW I added arch_prctl, but in hindsight it wasn't good idea. > > -Andi -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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/
