Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/9] namespaces: utsname: switch to using uts namespaces | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Fri, 19 May 2006 03:05:23 -0600 |
| |
"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.
> 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.
Eric
- 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/
|  |