From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05EED1F461 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:50:25 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=UZOjC4vNlaZK5hwn PtKk4s7nPWHno4dEqQH0OXw9/5C+wLLstA4MFmCHIsorejjOXiUjkQ5hLJjH2t8U BvLTd/UTv9oMyVDh1ySCmXTMi+K0vTFVw1LyEQ1ZDh7XzNSh3daJi80wOrCRdxaz l5uJD/GmByanjqKGIDX9V5GC4B8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=8DzIawv/7q/AlYsSI5Behy CEl1k=; b=n0tkjniQvHsI+sJjrTEuDii9vWA/oxeQr1BuJ8x8XGD891Jyw00Ctj 5lilM6b9tCJWAnoYDKoivPkme6TTPZOlFuSEoKf+KkRdLcQHOwQ0Nmthwnpc4mZs QhuBXhBIOLAxrlyEn4/87RiR0xhh0ucfaCvUOv5ucoi6TExcMifJQ= Received: (qmail 80090 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2019 16:50:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 79769 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2019 16:50:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-qk1-f193.google.com Subject: Re: syscall wrappers policy (was re: glibc at the Toolchains microconference) To: Zack Weinberg Cc: GNU C Library References: <87o92kibdz.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190626163908.GA13251@altlinux.org> <530DF2A2-2D76-43F6-81D0-405EFE097A57@brauner.io> <5f740811-e7d7-6ece-4156-89651666e416@redhat.com> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: <7b8c028c-da64-e661-1994-0d39771c4a04@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:50:17 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/27/19 10:10 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> * Wrappers should be added … unless there is a clear reason not to > > I do not understand the rationale for these exceptions. Did you have > specific cases in mind when you wrote these? I think it was just a general escape hatch which is not needed. If we find a really bad example then we'll have a public discussion about it and can use consensus to change the rules. Therefore the rules as written can be as strict as we agree to. > (I’m particularly concerned that the “not quite a direct wrapper” rule > would be used to argue against exposing a variant of `clone` that > returns twice like `fork` does, which is a thing I think we should > have. You probably _can_ do any fork-with-options operation with the > `clone` wrapper we have, but having to separate the child-side code to > its own function and allocate stack space for it can be a serious obstacle.) Updated. Please review. https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus#WIP:_Kernel_syscalls_wrappers -- Cheers, Carlos.