* Willy Tarreau: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 07:55:30AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> [1] https://sourceware.org/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 and will > continue to have to define their own syscall wrappers to exploit the > full potential of the modern operating systems they execute on. What's modern about a 15-bit thread identifier? I understand that using this interface is required in some cases (which includes some system calls for which glibc does provide wrappers), but I assumed that it was at least understood that these reusable IDs for tasks were an extremely poor interface. Aren't the resulting bugs common knowledge? > This reminds me when one had to write their own spinlocks and atomics > many years ago. 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. I don't understand. If you want a non-reusable identifier, you have to go through the /proc interface anyway. I think the recommendation is to use the PID/start time combination to get a unique process identifier or something like that. I wanted to add gettid to glibc this cycle, but your comments suggest to me that if we did this, we'd likely never get a proper non-reusable thread identifier from the kernel. So I'm not sure what do anymore. Thanks, Florian
