zlacker

>>eclipt+(OP)
It looks like golang is going to have to deal with — again — OpenBSD treating libc as the interface with the kernel instead of syscalls being the interface with the kernel.

I wonder if there could be some way to sign a dynamic library to allow it to create direct system calls and then pass that as a kernel command line argument at boot?

>>__turb+3l
OpenBSD is certainly taking it quite far. They want to disallow system calls from all non-libc code segments so that only whitelisted code can interface with it.

It is not the only operating system in the "unstable kernel interface" group though. Linux is actually the only one with a stable system call interface.

I've written somewhat at length about this:

https://www.matheusmoreira.com/articles/linux-system-calls

>>matheu+lp
We need more fat kernels and less libcs, libc ties us forcibly to the C legacy. Time for more type safe and richer interfaces with the kernel.

>>KRAKRI+U21
A kernel is not a programming languages. Type safety is something enforced by a compiler or interpreter, while accessing a system call interface is always something that can be expressed in terms of a sequence of assembly language instructions. Doesn't matter whether you're accessing a C API or a syscall mechanism.

Forcing usage of libc is actually an effort towards type safety. `syscall` just takes a syscall number and an unspecified amount of arguments of unconstrained type. It's the opposite of being type safe.