Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:25:20 +0200 From: u-igbb@...ey.se To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: libhybris and musl? On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:59:17PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > way too much bad code to be safe to load into your program's address > space. Any process that's loaded them should be treated as potentially > crashing or aborting at any time, and possibly also has serious > namespace pollution from random libs getting pulled in. > > The way I'd like to see this solved for our "new platform vision" is > to move the actual GL implementation out of the address space of the > application using it, and instead provide a universal libGL for > applications to link (even statically, if desired) that marshals all > GL operations over shared-memory-based IPC to a separate process which > has loaded the actual driver for the target hardware you want to > render to. IMHO this is how the shared libs concept should have been implemented from the very beginning. An (efficient) IPC is so much better in the long run than allowing everything to every module and hoping that it knows what it does (far from the reality) and of course that it does not abuse its powers (not extremely reliable). There has been plenty of research around microkernels vs monolithic but regrettably I am not aware of corresponding research for libraries as IPC versus the monolithic ones. Rune
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.