https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48291
qsniyg qsniyg@mail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |qsniyg@mail.com
--- Comment #41 from qsniyg qsniyg@mail.com --- (In reply to Zebediah Figura from comment #40)
Ultimately, if we really want to pursue making direct syscalls work (and I still wince that the idea isn't immediately thrown out as absurd)
IIRC there are a few DRM and anticheat systems that use syscalls directly, apparently RDR2 does as well (https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/issues/3291#issuecomment-562993403). While I agree that this is crazy, I don't know if there's any other way. That being said, I don't believe wine necessarily needs to switch internally to using syscalls instead of IPC, "only" support syscalls as well, so the performance or compatibility impact for any application not using syscalls directly (i.e. nearly all of them) shouldn't be affected.
I think we'll need to start talking to the Linux kernel about giving us a custom interface that makes it easy and performant.
Is there an issue with seccomp? I've used it in the past, and while at the time it didn't support what I was looking for (passing fds, although the one who posted the patch was interested in pursuing this at the time), it was quite easy to use and as far as I could tell, there wasn't much overhead either.