Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Brad Conroy <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Re: Using direct socket syscalls on x86_32 where

On 29 July 2015 at 19:32, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Justin Cormack
> <> wrote:
>> On 28 July 2015 at 08:44, Alexander Larsson <> wrote:
>>> 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.

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
//use socketcall

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.