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.