On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:54:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
> 
> > On 9/11/19 3:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Carlos O'Donell:
> >> 
> >>> It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
> >>> registration like we do for set_robust_list().
> >> 
> >> Note that this depends on the in-tree system call numbers list, which I
> >> still need to finish according to Joseph's specifications.
> >
> > Which work is this? Do you have a URL reference to WIP?
> 
>   <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-05/msg00630.html>
>   <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-06/msg00015.html>
> 
> I think realistically this is needed for the Y2038 work as well if we
> want to support building glibc with older kernel headers.  “glibc 2..31
> will have Y2038 support and rseq support, but only if it runs on a
> current and it happens to have been built against sufficiently recent
> kernel headers” is a bit difficult to explain.  The current kernel part
> is easy enough to understand, but the impact of the kernel headers on
> the feature set has always been tough to explain.  Especially if you
> factor in vendor kernels with system call backports.

I'm in favor of in-tree syscall numbers list. If you don't want O(n)
per-arch work, though, you could just define the 'base number' for
each arch and use the fact that all the new syscalls share a common
numbering (i.e. base + constant depending only on syscall). I think
including the list with glibc is more robust though, and would
eliminate the need to check for definitions of older (pre-unification)
syscalls glibc wants to use.

Rich

Reply via email to