On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> I’m not so sure it’s useless. Historically, POSIX systems have, in 
> practice and almost by definition, been very C focused, but the world is 
> changing. A less crufty library could be useful for newer languages:

Historically, there was once an attempt to rework POSIX into a separate 
language-independent definition and language bindings (for C, Fortran, Ada 
etc.), but I don't think it got anywhere, and it's probably doubtful 
whether the idea was ever very practical.  (See the introduction to 
POSIX.1:1990, for example: "Future revisions are expected to contain 
bindings for other programming languages as well as for the C language.  
This will be accomplished by breaking this part of ISO/IEC 9945 into 
multiple portions---one defining core requirements independent of any 
programming language, and others composed of programming language 
bindings.".)

> > thread internals for syscalls that
> > require coordination between all user created
> > threads (setxid),
> 
> We should just deal with this in the kernel. The current state of 
> affairs is nuts.

Yes, we should have a few new syscalls to set these ids at the process 
level.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com