liblinux VS Task

> 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!

So many tools in this space! This one looks a little bit like go-task, but it seems maybe better for production workflows because if timeout support, while go-task seems more aimed to command line work/makefile replacement.

—-

https://github.com/go-task/task

View on GitHub

A similar tool is `task` https://taskfile.dev/ . It is quite capable and also a single executable. I've grown to quite like it.

check out tasks - a bit of a learning curve but arguably more powerful imo

That's when I came across taskfile.dev. Task is an automation tool designed to be more accessible than other options, such as GNU Make.

Full disclosure, I did not review Conda or Hatch fully. Not that there is anything explicitly wrong with either of them. Conda is too specific to the scientific community for my general taste. Hatch seems to go well with Conda and also uses the PyProject manifest as well. It's nice that it gives you several built in tools, similar to commit hooks, but I tend to like to roll my own via a Taskfile and run them with Poetry.

Taskfile is a tool for streamlining repetitive development tasks. It helps automate activities like building, testing, and deploying applications. Unlike Makefile, Taskfile uses YAML for configuration, making it more readable and user-friendly.

9. We test everything with another promotion which runs make targets which build docker containers to run python scripts (pytest)

This is also built by a complicated web of wildcarded makefile targets, which need to be interoperable and support a few if/else cases for specific components.

My plan is to migrate all of this to something simpler and more straightforward, or at least more maintainable, which is honestly probably going to turn into taskfile[0] instead of makefiles, and then simple python scripts for the glue that ties everything together or does more complex logic.

My hope is that it can be more straightforward and easier to maintain, with more component-ized logic, but realistically every step in that labyrinthine build process (and that's just the open-source version!) came from a decision made by a very talented team of engineers who know far more about the process and the product than I do. At this point I'm wondering if it would make 'more sense' to replace it with a giant python script of some kind and get access to all the logic we need all at once (it would not).

[0] https://taskfile.dev/

task - a task runner and a replacement for make