Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I mean, if there are nasty situations where you're trying to bring > up a fubar'd box where getting init to exec the single-user shell > makes or breaks your efforts, then I can just update the comment to > indicate this. > > Do such situations occur anymore (anyone reading please chime in)? > Even if rarely, that's still legit. > > I'm hunting this code because it mentions "no sysctl" as its raison > d'etre, which is definitely not a reason for keeping it.
It is confusing that it says sysctl (rather than syscall). I don't see how SIGSYS gets delivered for a subset of sysctl, it is only delivered for a whole syscall being missing. Maybe this is an attempt at supporting ABI-crossing from the CSRG days, from before sysctl, to when sysctl was added, and then the code remained behind for other reasons? These days we have far more experience at ABI crossings, and are providing better solutions (seeing as we've adjusted/broken/changed the ABI only oh hundreds of times..)
