Am 24.03.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Hajime Tazaki: > At Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:21:49 +0100, > Richard Weinberger wrote: >> >> Am 24.03.2015 um 14:10 schrieb Hajime Tazaki: >> > == More information == >>> >>> The crucial difference between UML (user-mode linux) and this approach >>> is that we allow multiple network stack instances to co-exist within a >>> single process with dlmopen(3) like linking for easy debugging. >> >> Is this the only difference? >> We already have arch/um, why do you need arch/lib/ then? >> My point is, can't you merge your arch/lib into the existing arch/um stuff? >> From a very rough look your arch/lib seems like a micro UML. > > I understand your point. > but ptrace(2) based system call interception used by UML > makes it depend on the host OS (i.e., linux kernel), while > LibOS uses symbol hijacking with weak alias and LD_PRELOAD. > > we're really thinking to run this library on other > POSIX-like hosts (e.g., osx) though it's not coming yet. Yeah, but this does not mean that arch/um and arch/lib can't coexist in arch/um. Maybe you can add a "library operation mode" to UML. I'll happily help you in that area. >> BTW: There was already an idea for having UML as regular library. >> See: http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/old/projects.html >> "UML as a normal userspace library" > > thanks, it's new information for me. > were there any trial on this idea ? IIRC Jeff (the original author of UML) wanted to create a special linker script such that you can build UML as shared object. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>