Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:38:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

On 04/13/16 19:13, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

One other reason to suggest using a /proc file is that you're not at
the mercy of the glibc folks to wire up a new system call.  (Glibc has
been refusing to wire up getrandom(2), for example.   Grrrr.....)

This brings right back up the libinux idea.  There are continued
concerns about type compatibility, but saying "oh, use syscall(3)
instead" has worse properties than a Linux-kernel-team maintained
libinux.  Last I heard the glibc team had (reluctantly?) agreed to do
something to deal with linux-specific system calls, but last I heard
nothing had happened.  The last discussion I see on the glibc mailing
list dates back to November, and that thread seems to have died from
bikeshedding, again.

There aren't a *lot* of such system calls, but even in that thread the
"oh, only two applications need this, let them use syscall(3)" seems to
remain.

And only 2 applications will continue to use it because no one wants to
write syscall() wrappers for their individual applications, so it's a
vicious cycle :(

I really like the 'libinux' idea, did anyone every hack up a first-pass
at this?  And I'm guessing we have more syscalls now that would need to
be added (like getrandom(), but that shouldn't be too difficult.

thanks,

greg k-h