* Alejandro Colomar: > Hi Florian! > > On 7/25/22 12:38, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha: >> >>> Is there an easy way to regenerate that header to get the tatest >>> syscalls? Maybe a command could be supplied so that users (or at >>> least distributors) have it easy to regenerate them? Maybe it already >>> exists but it's not widely known? >> I have recently backported the syscall-names.list updates to glibc >> 2.34, >> but not glibc 2.33. It's a simple backport. >> We could perhaps enhance the glibc build process that it uses the >> union >> of the known system call names and what's found in the kernel headers. > > I guess it's a simple backport, since it's just adding the macros (I > guess 0 side effects). > > But maybe providing a script, e.g., update-libc-syscalls(1), that > distributions and users can call when updating a kernel to immediately > backport syscalls to their system, would make it even simpler. > > E.g., when one runs `apt-get upgrade`, if the kernel is upgraded, > update-libc-syscalls(1) would be called by apt-get as a post install > script, and libc macros would have the new syscall numbers provided by > the new kernel. No need to wait glibc programmers to provide the > backport. > > Makes sense?
Sure, that's a possibility. We don't do this in Fedora because RPM does not have delayed script execution, so it's hard to make sure everything is installed properly when the processing script runs. Thanks, Florian
