Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:44:26 +0200
From: Alexander Larsson <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>
Subject: Re: Using direct socket syscalls on x86_32 where available?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Andy Lutomirski <> 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.