Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:55:16 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: capset() capget() syscalls

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:13:55PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "RF" == Rich Felker <> writes:
> >> futex
> RF> glibc does not expose this as far as I know. I would not be opposed
> RF> to having sys/futex.h however. It's less ugly than having to use
> RF> linux/futex.h and syscall()...
> +1.  <sys/futex.h> and a separate library seems to be the best way to
> support the futex interface.  Such a lib might try to be portable with
> support for other lock and semaphore apis when futex(7)s are unavailable.

With something like futex that's a trivial syscall, I'm not sure what
qualifies it for a separate lib rather than inclusion in libc. The
library would be <20 bytes of code on most archs... That's not to say
I think we have to expose it in musl, but I think using a separate
library (especially if there's any chance of it being built as a .so
rather than just .a) is a worse choice than just writing
syscall(SYS_futex, ...) in your source...


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.