lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net> 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
like:

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.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  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