From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12301 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add getrandom syscall wrapper function Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:14:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20180102021403.GK1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20180101203123.12816-1-hauke@hauke-m.de> <20180101204748.GH1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <501306ff-c0e3-f1be-a81b-ba6e619fd807@hauke-m.de> <20180101220354.GI1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1514859145 18584 195.159.176.226 (2 Jan 2018 02:12:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 02:12:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-12317-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jan 02 03:12:21 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eWC3q-000454-Lo for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 03:12:14 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 16200 invoked by uid 550); 2 Jan 2018 02:14:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 16182 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2018 02:14:15 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180101220354.GI1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12301 Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 05:03:54PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > > and we've > > > discussed in the past but never reached any conclusion on whether > > > there should be a fallback when the syscall doesn't exist (running on > > > old kernel). > > > > glibc does not have a fallback for this syscall there was a long > > discussion about this, see here: https://lwn.net/Articles/711013/ > > As they never found a good solution for their fallback. I think musl > > should also not provide a fallback. Interesting that the biggest issue seems to have been about using file descriptors as the fallback. That's something I never considered using in musl since we have AT_RANDOM and sysctl on ancient kernels that lack it. There are a small number of kernels between when sysctl started spamming syslog with deprecation warnings and when AT_RANDOM was added but I don't really care about those; it still works anyway. Rich