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=-3.8 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 342A01F461 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:58:04 +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:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=Kuyp 1Mq1WB7HFjrSUKS9C48ukKB4dLFCN4YyVXNFLgVHzkVPqqu7zED5nnoSb3cj3/0g C6IdFz9NzkzGDHEXXBYX9+26bLoin2qhXMA3SZeOfvQEaJFh80XxbzCTgzrhTcKP PjYg8q0fUYAtVti425Ck9ri4IZ7yu+h1y32+ifw= 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:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=default; bh=+DL62VPmbZ Y4va9l7T95SOXTPKY=; b=lv8dEucj7ICfkxSVO9cbZXjKW/fVoagDqBfgKkYk+V ZluXXg4cPLQx8pjyDssQIbMgmpLPZs30LivOvVa0b6+j2bKvEIua28l9wjDldygM 76RmVL2IMMZpb85v8vwIH2YqmIHaSKrlOqCEXv9f9pPXFpyO9nXAC+I0W2H2xriz s= Received: (qmail 116445 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2019 15:58:01 -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 116434 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2019 15:58:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mailbackend.panix.com MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <20190627093928.GA25423@altlinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20190627093928.GA25423@altlinux.org> From: Zack Weinberg Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:57:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: glibc at the Toolchains microconference at LPC 2019 To: "Dmitry V. Levin" Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" , GNU C Library Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:39 AM Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 05:04:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > [...] > > Could you please review the language here: > > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus#WIP:_Kernel_syscalls_wrappers > > I suggest adding that there is no need to add wrappers for those syscalls > that already have dedicated libraries. > > For example, such multiplexers as bpf(2) and keyctl(2) already have > dedicated libraries (libbpf and libkeyutils, respectively) that provide > APIs on top of these raw syscalls. I specifically disagree with this. The existence of these dedicated libraries does not mean that there is no need for a minimal wrapper in the C library. In fact, providing a minimal wrapper in the C library would make the implementation of dedicated libraries easier, since they can concentrate on designing their higher-level API rather than wasting engineering effort on system call wrappers. glibc has already done all of the low-level work necessary. I am a little disappointed to see that Linux is still inventing new multiplexed system calls, though. I thought that was demonstrated to be a bad idea back in the days of __NR_ipc. zw