Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 May 2006 21:21:14 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/9] namespaces: utsname: switch to using uts namespaces |
| |
Quoting Randy.Dunlap (rdunlap@xenotime.net): > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c > > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c > > @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ asmlinkage int sys_uname(struct old_utsn > > if (!name) > > return -EFAULT; > > down_read(&uts_sem); > > - err=copy_to_user(name, &system_utsname, sizeof (*name)); > > + err=copy_to_user(name, utsname(), sizeof (*name)); > > It would be really nice if you would fix spacing while you are here, > like a space a each side of '='. > > and a space after ',' in the function calls below.
Ok. Then in blocks like the following:
> > - error = __copy_to_user(&name->sysname,&system_utsname.sysname,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > + error = __copy_to_user(&name->sysname,&utsname()->sysname,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > error |= __put_user(0,name->sysname+__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->nodename,&system_utsname.nodename,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->nodename,&utsname()->nodename,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > error |= __put_user(0,name->nodename+__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->release,&system_utsname.release,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->release,&utsname()->release,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > error |= __put_user(0,name->release+__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->version,&system_utsname.version,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->version,&utsname()->version,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > error |= __put_user(0,name->version+__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->machine,&system_utsname.machine,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->machine,&utsname()->machine,__OLD_UTS_LEN); > > error |= __put_user(0,name->machine+__OLD_UTS_LEN);
Should I leave it as is, to keep the consistent look? Change just the lines I'm editing, making it inconsistent? Or change the whole block, making my patch seem a bit larger than it really is, but giving the nicest end result?
I suppose I could insert a separate patchset fixing up the spacing in those blocks but making no real changes at all, then apply my patch on top of that...?
> > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/syscall.c > > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/syscall.c > > @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ out: > > */ > > asmlinkage int sys_uname(struct old_utsname __user * name) > > { > > - if (name && !copy_to_user(name, &system_utsname, sizeof (*name))) > > + if (name && !copy_to_user(name, utsname(), sizeof (*name))) > > > OK, here's my big comment/question. I want to see <nodename> increased to > 256 bytes (per current POSIX), so each field of struct <variant>_utsname > needs be copied individually (I think) instead of doing a single > struct copy. > > I've been working on this for the past few weeks (among other > things). Sorry about the timing. > I could send patches for this against mainline in a few days, > but I'll be glad to listen to how it would be easiest for all of us > to handle. > > I'm probably a little over half done with my patches. > They will end up adding a lib/utsname.c that has functions for: > put_oldold_unmame() // to user > put_old_uname() // to user > put_new_uname() // to user > put_posix_uname() // to user
Ok, so long as these functions accept a utsname, we should be able to just change what we pass in to these functions to being the namespace's utsname, right? Or am I missing the really nasty part?
thanks, -serge - 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/
| |