[klibc] [PATCH] Add syscall wrappers required by libkeyutils

Ben Hutchings ben at decadent.org.uk
Mon Jul 27 18:36:27 PDT 2020

On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 05:46 -0700, hpa at zytor.com wrote:
> On July 27, 2020 2:43:36 AM PDT, Christian Eggers <ceggers at arri.de> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 25 July 2020, 23:36:33 CEST, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 08:37 +0200, Christian Eggers wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > libkeyutils usually invokes syscall() directly. As syscall() is not
> > > > provided by klibc, libkeyutils has to be slightly modified for using the
> > > > klibc wrappers.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be more useful for klibc to implement syscall() then?
> > 
> > I hope that somebody else could respond to this question as I am likely not
> > skilled enough to answer this.
> syscall(3) is not implemented by design, because it is silently
> broken on many architectures (mainly 32-bit ones.)

I understand that it's not portable in general, as there are many
architecture-specific quirks in the system call ABI.  But where there
are other established libraries using it, I assume they're already
dealing with those quirks.  Also, the newer system calls that are
likely to be called this way are less quirky, aren't they?

I think that if we can *cheaply* implement a glibc API that allows more
software to build and run on klibc with fewer changes, then we should.


Ben Hutchings
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
                                                       - Robert Coveyou

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.zytor.com/archives/klibc/attachments/20200728/89607ba8/attachment.sig>

More information about the klibc mailing list