From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261280AbVALH6v (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:58:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261281AbVALH6v (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:58:51 -0500 Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:9377 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261280AbVALH6t (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:58:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:58:04 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andries Brouwer Cc: "Barry K. Nathan" , Linus Torvalds , Marcelo Tosatti , Alan Cox , Lukasz Trabinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?) Message-ID: <20050112075804.GA13336@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andries Brouwer , "Barry K. Nathan" , Linus Torvalds , Marcelo Tosatti , Alan Cox , Lukasz Trabinski , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20050107170712.GK29176@logos.cnet> <1105136446.7628.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050107221255.GA8749@logos.cnet> <20050111225127.GD4378@ip68-4-98-123.oc.oc.cox.net> <20050111235907.GG2760@pclin040.win.tue.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050111235907.GG2760@pclin040.win.tue.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:59:07AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote: > s/sys_uselib/uselib/ > The system call is uselib(). > > Hmm - old cruft.. Why insult your users? > I do not have source for Maple. And my xmaple binary works just fine. > But it is a libc4 binary. > > You mean "on the typical recently installed Linux system, with nothing > but the usual Linux utilities". > > People always claim that Linux is good in preserving binary compatibility. > Don't know how true that was, but introducing such config options doesnt > help. > > Let me also mutter about something else. > In principle configuration options are evil. Nobody wants fifty thousand > configuration options. But I see them multiply like ioctls. > There should be a significant gain in having a config option. > > > Maybe some argue that there is a gain in security here. Perhaps. > Or a gain in memory. It is negligible. > I see mostly a loss. > > There are more ancient system calls, like old_stat and oldolduname. > Do we want separate options for each system call that is obsoleted? Agreed to this complaint. I still think it might be a good idea to allow configuring obsolete syscalls out, but doing that on a per-syscall basis sounds like a bad idea. I always liked the way FreeBSD one conditionals for everything that was obsoleted in a release. So by setting only few options you could select how old binaries you want to support, defaulting to on for all of them.