Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Musl Libc 1.0 Is Going To Be Released Real Soon

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Musl Libc 1.0 Is Going To Be Released Real Soon

    Phoronix: Musl Libc 1.0 Is Going To Be Released Real Soon

    I've been informed by the musl development camp that they intend to release version 1.0 of their standard C library in the next few weeks...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYyMzM

  • #2
    GNU is dying

    Comment


    • #3
      Standard MIT license ... ummh ...


      SCREW IT!

      Comment


      • #4
        My laptop with XFCE runs Alpine Linux with musl libc and Alpine Linux 3.0 will be shipped with musl.

        One of the nice things with musl is that it is pretty strict when it comes to standards. So if your project builds with musl libc, then it is a good sign that you are doing things "right".

        Comment


        • #5
          No offence, but isn't this MUSL guy the one who is criticizing systemd with lacking knowledge? How do we know this libc of their is any good?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by caligula View Post
            No offence, but isn't this MUSL guy the one who is criticizing systemd with lacking knowledge? How do we know this libc of their is any good?
            Yes, Felker is critical of systemd. Citation needed on "lacking knowledge".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by curaga View Post
              Yes, Felker is critical of systemd. Citation needed on "lacking knowledge".
              Well not lacking knowledge but ignoring it He was the one that stated "systemd makes it impossible to upgrade without rebooting" in his blog and a few sentence later stated "With regards to upgrades, systemd's systemctl has a daemon-reexec command to make systemd serialize its state, re-exec itself, and continue uninterrupted"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Yes, Felker is critical of systemd. Citation needed on "lacking knowledge".
                The reddit threads revealed lots of gaps in the articles argumentation. People in general believe systemd is much better than he thinks. So maybe he's wrong.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Remember that this is from someone who is very much a perfectionist.
                  Rich's take seems to be that it's not suitable for there to be any possibility for anything less than a kernel or hardware bug to crash the core system components (such as init and the libc).
                  Some examples of how far he takes that are his insistence that the dynamic linker and libc must be one file that can be upgraded atomically. If they aren't, a mismatch might make a program executed at precisely the wrong time crash.
                  Likewise, he considers this a possible race condition:
                  Code:
                  unlink("/lib/ld-musl-i386.so.1"); //remove the musl dynamic linker
                  //Until this next line returns, the system cannot start dynamically linked programs
                  symlink("/lib/libc.so", "/lib/ld-musl-i386.so.1");
                  At least 99% of the time, these are going to be irrelevant.
                  But there is a tiny window during the update when you could have something fail to start--which could, at least in theory, be the moment that something important starts....
                  Similarly, he maintains that malloc() should succeed only when there is actually the memory to fill every request that has been made so far, since overcommit leads to the OOM killer.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by droste View Post
                    Well not lacking knowledge but ignoring it He was the one that stated "systemd makes it impossible to upgrade without rebooting" in his blog and a few sentence later stated "With regards to upgrades, systemd's systemctl has a daemon-reexec command to make systemd serialize its state, re-exec itself, and continue uninterrupted"
                    From the blog post:
                    This could perhaps be used to switch to a new version without rebooting. ... Unfortunately, this brings us back to the issue of PID 1 being special. For normal applications, if re-execing fails, the worst that happens is the process dies and gets restarted (either manually or by some monitoring process) if necessary. However for PID 1, if re-execing itself fails, the whole system goes down (kernel panic).
                    (emphasis was mine)

                    So basically his point is, you can 'solve' the problem with re-exe, but then you create new problems with reliable error handling. Which of course will require a lot of more smart solutions.... A bit down the road you will have tons of smart solutions for problems that didnt really need to be there in the first place, similar to what you have on Windows systems. I his point of view it would be better to not create those problems in the first place by keeping pid 1 small.

                    I don't think that qualifies for "lack of knowledge" or "ignoring the knowledge". It qualifies for "disagree" though.

                    (He could have worded himself a bit better by saying "systemd makes it impossible to reliable upgrade without rebooting" since people who do lack knowledge defines 'impossible' different)

                    I do find it very interesting that you can not openly criticize or disagree with how things in systemd is engineered nowdays. If you do - even if you have valid points - people will make others believe that you "lack knowledge", true or not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by caligula View Post
                      The reddit threads revealed lots of gaps in the articles argumentation.
                      The reddit threads revealed that a lot people did not understand what he was talking about.

                      There have been many critical articles about systemd. In my opinion his have been some of the better ones. Feel free to post links to more insightsful critics against systemd if you disagree with me in that.

                      Originally posted by caligula View Post
                      People in general believe systemd is much better than he thinks. So maybe he's wrong.
                      People in general "lack knowledge", so maybe people in general are wrong?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by caligula View Post
                        How do we know this libc of their is any good?
                        Maybe we could ask phoronix to run some tests?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                          Remember that this is from someone who is very much a perfectionist.
                          Rich's take seems to be that it's not suitable for there to be any possibility for anything less than a kernel or hardware bug to crash the core system components (such as init and the libc).
                          That is a good thing, and is exactly what I would expect from a developer of such core components.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ncopa View Post
                            (He could have worded himself a bit better by saying "systemd makes it impossible to reliable upgrade without rebooting" since people who do lack knowledge defines 'impossible' different)
                            If he would have said that it would be better, but he didn't. And the reality is that systemd upgrades actually work without reboots so it's merely a theoretical problem.

                            Originally posted by ncopa View Post
                            I do find it very interesting that you can not openly criticize or disagree with how things in systemd is engineered nowdays. If you do - even if you have valid points - people will make others believe that you "lack knowledge", true or not.
                            I'm totally OK with people criticizing systemd. But in reality you will always find the "hardcore" fans who will fight anyone saying bad things about "their" product.
                            In my opinion this is a huge case of bikeshedding. Few people actually have valid technical points, but everyone wants to be in there and has to say something.
                            For me the init system should Just Work(tm) and I don't care too much about how this is done. And it gives me nothing that the init does not crash but everything else is still crashing. If I have a headless server which I'm connecting to via SSH it doesn't help me if sshd crashes but the init keeps running. The connection is lost. Same with desktops. As soon as the X server crashes all my applications I was using are gone and all unsaved work is gone. It didn't help me that the init sytem still runs in both cases

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by droste View Post
                              And the reality is that systemd upgrades actually work without reboots so it's merely a theoretical problem.
                              Of course there is no need to handle errors correctly when there are no errors to handle - but what happens if you run out of memory or similar? The entire point with his rant was that you should expect more than "works almost always" from a pid 1.

                              I still don't see how addressing a theoretical problem - before it actually hit anyone in real life - qualifies for "lack of knowledge" or "ignoring the knowledge".

                              Originally posted by droste View Post
                              I'm totally OK with people criticizing systemd. But in reality you will always find the "hardcore" fans who will fight anyone saying bad things about "their" product.
                              In my opinion this is a huge case of bikeshedding. Few people actually have valid technical points, but everyone wants to be in there and has to say something.
                              Exactly. My point is that he is one of the few that actually have valid technical points - still someone claimed he lacks knowledge.

                              Originally posted by droste View Post
                              For me the init system should Just Work(tm) and I don't care too much about how this is done.
                              Good for you. There are some people who does care if errors are handled properly so disks (and other things) are shut down clean or not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X