Re: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)

["Barry K. Nathan" <barryn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:36:41PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:18:16PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
[snip]
> > how about something like the embedded, experimental, and broken options. 
> > that way normal users can disable all of them at a stroke, people who need 
> > them can add them in.

That is what I had in mind for the longer term. Now that I think about
it, my current patch is probably a bad way to get from here to there --
it adds a config option that would later *need* to be renamed and moved
to a different category.

(To be specific, the concept I have in mind is to have an option that
disables the syscalls that are usually used only by libc5 and earlier.)

> Thats just not an option - you would have zillions of config options. 

I don't see how it would be zillions, but it's possible there's
something I'm not yet understanding.

> Moreover this is a system call, and the system call interface is one of the few 
> supposed to be stable. You shouldnt simply assume that "no one will ever use sys_uselib()" - 
> there might be programs out there who use it.

And if you have programs that need it, you (or your vendor) can set the
config option accordingly.

-Barry K. Nathan <barryn@xxxxxxxxx>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/