* Dave Martin: > Fair points, though this is rather what I meant by "sane essentials". > Because there are strict limits on what can be done in the vDSO, it may > be more bloat-resistant and more conservatively maintained. > > This might provide a way to push some dumb compatibility kludge code > that receives little ongoing maintenance outside the privilege wall, > whereas it has to sit in the kernel proper today. > > In theory we could opt to advertise new syscalls only via vDSO entry > points, and not maintain __NR_xxx values for them (which may or may > not upset ptrace users.) Anyway, I digress... Is the vDSO available across all architectures? (I don't think we use it on all architectures in glibc.) If not, a vDSO-based approach would merely lead to even more variance between architectures, which can't be a good thing. Thanks, Florian
