lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix argument checking in sched_setaffinity
    Linus wrote:
    > It's not. If anything, we should probably remove even more.
    >
    > I don't see what the problem was with just requiring the right damn size.
    > User mode can trivially get the size by asking for it

    I'll second that motion. Match size, or return -EINVAL.

    My understanding of "asking for it" requires at present a user code
    loop, to probe for the size that works. But my user code already does
    that, and the first thing for which I audit any changes to this kernel
    code is not breaking my sizing loop code in user space.

    I'd mildly prefer adding a kernel/user API for explicitly providing the
    two values:

    sizeof(cpumask_t)
    sizeof(nodemask_t)

    This might help reduce the unending confusions in the user and library
    code sitting on top of us.

    We could two phase this:
    1) add an obvious way to size these masks, and then
    2) six months later, require sizes to match in all these calls.

    I for one could live with a full and sudden change over, no phasing.
    But apparently my field exposure is more limited than Andi's is, at
    this time.

    --
    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:3.530 / U:0.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site