From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261544AbVALCci (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:32:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261354AbVALCci (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:32:38 -0500 Received: from orb.pobox.com ([207.8.226.5]:56012 "EHLO orb.pobox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261544AbVALCc3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:32:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:32:18 -0800 From: "Barry K. Nathan" To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: David Lang , Jesper Juhl , Andries Brouwer , "Barry K. Nathan" , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Lukasz Trabinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?) Message-ID: <20050112023218.GF4325@ip68-4-98-123.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <20050111235907.GG2760@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <20050111223641.GA27100@logos.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050111223641.GA27100@logos.cnet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:36:41PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:18:16PM -0800, David Lang wrote: [snip] > > how about something like the embedded, experimental, and broken options. > > that way normal users can disable all of them at a stroke, people who need > > them can add them in. That is what I had in mind for the longer term. Now that I think about it, my current patch is probably a bad way to get from here to there -- it adds a config option that would later *need* to be renamed and moved to a different category. (To be specific, the concept I have in mind is to have an option that disables the syscalls that are usually used only by libc5 and earlier.) > Thats just not an option - you would have zillions of config options. I don't see how it would be zillions, but it's possible there's something I'm not yet understanding. > Moreover this is a system call, and the system call interface is one of the few > supposed to be stable. You shouldnt simply assume that "no one will ever use sys_uselib()" - > there might be programs out there who use it. And if you have programs that need it, you (or your vendor) can set the config option accordingly. -Barry K. Nathan