On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:55:30AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > [1] https://sourceware.org/ > > > Bah, after all, this > > wipes quite a bit of the shame I feel every time I do something to > > bypass it :-/ > > > The sad thing is that the energy wasted arguing in the bug above could > > have been better spent designing and implementing a generic solution > > to expose syscalls without depending on glibc's politics anymore. > > > Willy > > bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6399 is a > > longstanding example. > > This one was a sad read and shows that applications will continue to > suffer from glibc's prehistorical view on operating systems Yes. I'm really not sure what glibc's current policies are meant to accomplish. They don't serve any useful purpose. There seems to be this weird subtext that glibc has leverage to change OS design, and it really doesn't. It's a misplaced idealism and ends up just hurting everyone. > > Seeing comments suggesting an application should open > /proc/$PID makes me really wonder if people actually want to use slow > and insecure applications designed this way. That's a separate point. Yes, gettid should have a wrapper, but *also* we should have an FD-based interface to processes, because outside specialized contexts (e.g., parent-child waiting), the traditional Unix process API really is impossible to use safely. But that's a separate ongoing discussion.
