Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

From: Greg KH
Date: Sun Apr 17 2016 - 21:09:34 EST

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:38:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/13/16 19:13, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > One other reason to suggest using a /proc file is that you're not at
> > the mercy of the glibc folks to wire up a new system call. (Glibc has
> > been refusing to wire up getrandom(2), for example. Grrrr.....)
> >
> This brings right back up the libinux idea. There are continued
> concerns about type compatibility, but saying "oh, use syscall(3)
> instead" has worse properties than a Linux-kernel-team maintained
> libinux. Last I heard the glibc team had (reluctantly?) agreed to do
> something to deal with linux-specific system calls, but last I heard
> nothing had happened. The last discussion I see on the glibc mailing
> list dates back to November, and that thread seems to have died from
> bikeshedding, again.
> There aren't a *lot* of such system calls, but even in that thread the
> "oh, only two applications need this, let them use syscall(3)" seems to
> remain.

And only 2 applications will continue to use it because no one wants to
write syscall() wrappers for their individual applications, so it's a
vicious cycle :(

I really like the 'libinux' idea, did anyone every hack up a first-pass
at this? And I'm guessing we have more syscalls now that would need to
be added (like getrandom(), but that shouldn't be too difficult.


greg k-h