[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/9] namespaces: utsname: switch to using uts namespaces
"Randy.Dunlap" <> writes:

> 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

Looking 256 at least makes sense to hold a dns fully qualified domain
name. So even if it isn't specified by posix is make sense.

Can we please make the structure we return to user space look something

struct long_utsname {
char *sysname;
char *nodename;
char *release;
char *version;
char *machine;
char *domainname;
char buf[0];

int sys_long_uname(char *buf, size_t bufsz);

So we don't hard code the maximum length of these strings into the user
interface, and can just return more by increasing our buffer size.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-19 14:05    [W:0.078 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site