Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 May 2006 10:39:52 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/9] namespaces: utsname: switch to using uts namespaces |
| |
On Fri, 19 May 2006 03:05:23 -0600 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net> writes: > > > On Thu, 18 May 2006 10:49:36 -0500 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > >> Replace references to system_utsname to the per-process uts namespace > >> where appropriate. This includes things like uname. > >> > >> Changes: Per Eric Biederman's comments, use the per-process uts namespace > >> for ELF_PLATFORM, sunrpc, and parts of net/ipv4/ipconfig.c > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> > > > > > 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. > > Where is it specified? Looking at the spec as SUSV3 I don't see a size > specified for nodename.
It's actually for hostname. It looks to me like they are used interchangeably. yes/no?
gethostname: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/gethostname.html sysconf: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/sysconf.html unistd.h: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/unistd.h.html limits.h: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/limits.h.html
From the latter: {HOST_NAME_MAX} Maximum length of a host name (not including the terminating null) as returned from the gethostname() function. Minimum Acceptable Value: {_POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX} (and) {_POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX} Maximum length of a host name (not including the terminating null) as returned from the gethostname() function. Value: 255
> > 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_uname() // to user > > put_old_uname() // to user > > put_new_uname() // to user > > put_posix_uname() // to user > > Sounds reasonable, if we really need a 256 byte nodename. > > As long as they take a pointer to the appropriate utsname > structure these patches should not fundamentally conflict.
--- ~Randy - 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/
| |