liblinux VS Git

> libc isn't really getting in the way here.

For the standard set of system calls, the libc is pretty great. For Linux-specific features, it could take years for glibc to gain support. Perhaps it's gotten better since then, perhaps it still takes years. I don't know.

Years ago I read about the tale of the getrandom system call and the quest to get glibc to support it:

https://lwn.net/Articles/711013/

A kernel hacker wrote in an email:

> maybe the kernel developers should support a libinux.a library that would allow us to bypass glibc when they are being non-helpful

That made a lot of sense to me. I took that concept and kind of ran with it. Started a liblinux project, essentially a libc with nothing but the thinnest possible system call wrappers. Researched quite a bit about glibc's attitude towards Linux to justify it:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux#why

Eventually I discovered Linux was already doing the same thing with their own nolibc.h file which they were already using in their own tools. It was a single file back then, by now it's become a sprawling directory full of code:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...

Even asked Greg Kroah-Hartman on reddit about it once:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...

Since the kernel was developing their own awesome headers, I decided to drop liblinux and start lone instead. :)

It gives you access to 100% of Linux's system calls. It eliminates a lot of global state. It gets rid of a lot of legacy libc crap.

Years ago I wrote a fairly referenced rationale in my liblinux project:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/master/READM...

> Now, do I think it would make total sense for syscall wrappers and NSS to be split into their own libs (or dbus interfaces maybe) with stable ABIs to enable other libc's, absolutely!

I worked on this a few years ago: liblinux.

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux

I'm not developing it anymore though because I found out the Linux kernel itself has a superior nolibc library:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...

It used to be a single header but it looks like they've recently organized it into a proper project!

I wonder if it will become some kind of official kernel library at some point. I asked Greg Kroah-Hartman about this and he mentioned there was once a klibc:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/fx5e4v/im_greg_kroah...

> This is something the BSD's got absolutely right.

BSDs, every other operating system really, force us to use the bundled C libraries and the C ABI. I think Linux's approach is better. It has a language-agnostic system call binary interface: it's just a simple calling convention and the system call instruction.

The right place for system call support is the compiler. We should have system_call keywords that cause it to emit code in the aforementioned calling convention. With this single keyword, it's possible to do program literally anything on Linux. Wrappers for every specific system call should be part of every language's standard library with language-specific types and semantics.

I'm not using this stuff professionally, it's just my own home lab's virtual machines with little services implemented as freestanding C programs. Not doing anything fancy right now, much of it was just to see if I could do it.

I've seen other people commenting here on HN saying they're using the same approach so it's defenitely not my invention.

I published some of my work in the form of a liblinux that I use to make system calls:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux

I'm not developing it anymore though because I found out the kernel itself has a nolibc library:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/tools/include/...

It used to be a single header but it looks like they've organized it into a proper project.

That's awesome. I didn't know about rwildcard until now. Is it part of GMSL? I searched for rwildcard on gmsl.sourceforge.io but didn't find it.

I think my function is needlessly complicated compared to rwildcard. Here's my code:

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/modular-buil...

https://github.com/matheusmoreira/liblinux/blob/modular-buil...

The file? and directory? functions were inspired by GMSL.

I wrote a general recursion function. It takes a function to apply to lists and a function to compute whether an element is a base case.

The recursive file system traversal function applies a directory globbing function to the list of paths and has file? as base case.

The find function filters out any items not matching a given predicate function. It was my intention to provide predicates like C_file? and header_file? but I stopped developing that project before that happened.

I think rwildcard is probably simpler and more efficient!

Boy, I can't find this either (but also, the kernel mailing list is _really_ difficult to search). I really remember Linus saying something like "it's not a real SCM, but maybe someone could build one on top of it someday" or something like that, but I cannot figure out how to find that.

You _can_ see, though, that in his first README, he refers to what he's building as not a "real SCM":

https://github.com/git/git/commit/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23...

Here is the direct link, as HN somehow removes the query string: https://github.com/git/git/commits?author=peff&since=2023-10...

I understand all that.

I'm saying, if you write a survey and one of the possible answers is "diff", but you don't clearly define what you mean by "diff", then don't be surprised if respondents use any reasonable definition that makes sense to them. Ask an ambiguous question, get a mishmash of answers.

The thing that Git uses for packfiles is called a "delta" by Git, but it's also reasonable to call it a "diff". After all, Git's delta algorithm is "greatly inspired by parts of LibXDiff from Davide Libenzi"[1]. Not LibXDelta but LibXDiff.

Yes, how Git stores blobs (using deltas) is orthogonal to how Git uses blobs. But while that orthogonality is useful for reasoning about Git, it's not wrong to think of a commit as the totality of what Git does, including that optimization. (Some people, when learning Git, stumble over the way it's described as storing full copies, think it's wasteful. For them to wrap their heads around Git, they have to understand that the optimization exists. Which makes sense because Git probably wouldn't be practical if it lacked that optimization.)

The reason I'm bringing all this up is, if you're trying to explain Git, which is what the original article is about, then it's very important to keep in mind that someone who is learning Git needs to know what you mean when you say "diff". Most people who already know Git would tend to gravitate toward the definition of "diff" that you're assuming (the thing that Git computes on the fly and never stores), but people who already know Git aren't the target audience when you're teaching Git.

---

[1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/diff-delta.c

Didn't Git have a new default merge strategy, `ort` https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNote... ?

Yes, but you are referring to standalone scripts, not functions defined within a Bash script.

Compare for example the following helper code used for git command completion inside Bash and inside PowerShell.

Bash: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/gi...