[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHr-LrakCdR5+kRg=tA67VZk4ndaC_VJjCa_PUeBcDgmMzrsOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:44:26 +0200
From: Alexander Larsson <alexander.larsson@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Using direct socket syscalls on x86_32 where available?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> One way to implement it would be to favor the new syscalls but to set some
> variable the first time one of them returns ENOSYS. Once that happens,
> either all of them could fall back to socketcall or just that one syscall
> could.
>
> Or you could just avoid implementing it and see if anyone complains. It's
> plausible that xdg-app might start requiring the new syscalls (although it
> would presumably not kill you if tried to use socketcall).
>
> Alex, if glibc started using the new syscalls, would you want to require
> them inside xdg-app?
Probably not. At this point 32bit x86 just is not interesting enough
for such extra pain. We'll just not filter on address types on 32bit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
