[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Brad Conroy <technosaurus@...oo.com>
To: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Using direct socket syscalls on x86_32 where
available?
On 29 July 2015 at 19:32, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Justin Cormack
> <justin@...cialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> On 28 July 2015 at 08:44, Alexander Larsson <alexander.larsson@...il.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
I've had (DRY) concerns over including a copy of unistd.h for each arch.
If musl used system linux include headers, this could be an ifdef.
#include <linux/unistd.h>
#ifdef __NR_something
//use syscall
#else
//use socketcall
#endif
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.
