Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 May 2006 16:11:09 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/7] uts namespaces: Implement CLONE_NEWUTS flag |
| |
Quoting Dave Hansen (haveblue@us.ibm.com): > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 14:53 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > +struct uts_namespace *clone_uts_ns(struct uts_namespace *old_ns) > > +{ > > + struct uts_namespace *ns; > > + > > + ns = kmalloc(sizeof(struct uts_namespace), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (ns) { > > + memcpy(&ns->name, &old_ns->name, sizeof(ns->name)); > > + kref_init(&ns->kref); > > + } > > + return ns; > > +} > > Very small nit... > > Would this memcpy be more appropriate as a strncpy()? > > > +int unshare_utsname(unsigned long unshare_flags, struct uts_namespace **new_uts) > > +{ > > + if (unshare_flags & CLONE_NEWUTS) { > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > > + return -EPERM; > > + > > + *new_uts = clone_uts_ns(current->uts_ns); > > + if (!*new_uts) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > Would it be a bit nicer to use the ERR_PTR() mechanism here instead of > the double-pointer bit? > > I've always liked those a bit better because there's no hiding the fact > of what is actually a return value from a function.
I agree. I was (grudgingly) copying the style from the other helpers in fs/fork.c. Then I had to pull it out so it could cleanly return -ENOMEM if !CONFIG_UTS, but I expect CONFIG_UTS to be yanked, and this fn to be returned to fs/fork.c...
Might be worth a separate patch to change over all those helpers in fork.c? (I think they were all brought in along with the sys_unshare syscall)
Agreed on all your other points, 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/
| |