Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call

[dean gaudet <dean@arctic.org>]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> 
> > I do see a problem, because some readers will take your example as a 
> > reference, as it will probably sit in a page that 
> > google^Wsearch_engines will bring at the top of search results for 
> > next ten years or so.
> > 
> > (I bet for "sys_indirect syscall" -> http://lwn.net/Articles/258708/ )
> > 
> > Next time you post it, please warn users that it will break in some 
> > years, or state clearly this should only be used internally by glibc.
> 
> dont be silly, next time Ulrich should also warn everyone that running 
> attachments and applying patches from untrusted sources is dangerous?
> 
> any code that includes:
> 
>   fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));
> 
> is by definition broken and unportable in every sense of the word. Apps 
> will use the proper glibc interfaces (if it's exposed).

as an application writer how do i access accept(2) with FD_CLOEXEC 
functionality?  will glibc expose an accept2() with a flags param?  if 
so... why don't we just have an accept2() syscall?

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