3 ms·

Your options are poor if you don't want to build on libc though.

• catiopatio 4y ago
  Outside unsupported edge cases (e.g. shell code), there's really no material difference between jumping to the address of syscall wrapper in libSystem.dylib, versus trapping to the kernel via a given syscall number — other than the latter being a supported interface, while the former is explicitly not.
  • JonChesterfield 4y ago
    Edge cases also include using a different libc, working around bugs in the supported libc, trying to minimise how much of your stack is implemented in C.
    • catiopatio 4y ago
      Alternative libc implementations just aren't a thing outside of Linux. However, if, for some reason, you really want to re-implement libc, you still can, but your library will have to link against the system-provided libc for the syscall entry points, because that's the only stable interface to the kernel. There's no reason that should be a problem for a hypothetical libc-reimplementor.