4 ms·
Why aren't these changes made in kernel to keep the syscall ABI standardized and safe instead of requiring the use of an unsafe language wrapper? We should be d
by eikenberry 3y ago
Why aren't these changes made in kernel to keep the syscall ABI standardized and safe instead of requiring the use of an unsafe language wrapper? We should be discouraging more use of unsafe languages, not forcing it.
- ben_bai 3y agoThen don't run a OS with a kernel written in C. That would rule out Windows, Mac, Linux and *BSD.
- eikenberry 3y agoUsing syscalls means you can replace the kernel. Using libc means you are locked into and FFI/C calling convention for anything other than C. Apples/Oranges.
- saagarjha 3y agoThere’s nothing wrong with the C calling convention, at least from a security perspective.
- samus 3y agoThe C ABI doesn't necessarily force you to use C. Maybe to turn some pesky macros into proper functions. Bury the bindings deep in the language's stdlib. Done. Under the hood, it's all assembly language instructions invoking an operating system written in C. Operating systems care very much about types, but can't offer type safety. Programming languages can.