From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 30979 invoked from network); 10 May 2021 06:46:25 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 May 2021 06:46:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 9922 invoked by uid 550); 10 May 2021 06:46:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 9903 invoked from network); 10 May 2021 06:46:23 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620629171; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XmxqAVNRHVY4ZRKvi5zepD7XDkIjTOXvx+cz0abOjIk=; b=coXPUSAWKVm5ShOcCbpKpS5t8Oct3wNjdEhdwZ+oZS27lz3sgtCDI9KviBs0DKOrU2JmfR efRWBaHW9FbYzD7m4EQyypa79LG+l9LxTRLUVoaRoiwRzdn6JK+wfCNc1pW2JgpcVRHzgu WktlgJisCiaHKWqhSfpizY5tC9+cACM= X-MC-Unique: aeez0AJ3PUC9rhcF66C5iw-1 From: Florian Weimer To: Martin Vajnar Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com References: Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 08:46:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Martin Vajnar's message of "Mon, 10 May 2021 07:50:44 +0200") Message-ID: <87k0o7gk6v.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [musl] Backwards kernel compatibility * Martin Vajnar: > I'd like to ask, if it is generally supported to run recent musl on > older kernels? My primary concern is that there are new syscalls being > added to linux, while at the same time I do not see a switch similar > to glibc's to select compatibility mode (--enable-kernel). --enable-kernel is used to *remove* compatibility with older kernels, not add it, so it does the opposite what you want. I believe musl has greater compatibility with older kernels than glibc. Thanks, Florian