lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subject[PATCH v3 0/4] exec: unify native/compat code
On 03/01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So I'm ok with your alternative
>
> >        typedef union {
> >                const char __user *const __user *native;
> >                compat_uptr_t __user *compat;
> >        } conditional_user_ptr_t;
>
> model instead, which moves the pointer into the union.
>
> However, if you do this, then I have one more suggestion: just move
> the "compat" flag in there too!
>
> Every time you pass the union, you're going to pass the compat flag to
> distinguish the cases. So do it like this:
>
> struct conditional_ptr {
> int is_compat;
> union {
> const char __user *const __user *native;
> compat_uptr_t __user *compat;
> };
> };
>
> and it will all look much cleaner, I bet.

Heh. I knew. I swear, I knew you would suggest this ;)

OK, please find v3. I had to deanonymize the union though, otherwise
the initializer in do_execve() becomes nontrivial.



But I don't think this is right. Not only this adds 200 bytes to exec.o.
To me, is_compat is not the private property of argv/envp. Yes, currently
nobody except get_arg_ptr() needs to know the difference. But who knows,
it is possible that we will need more "if (compat)" code in future. IOW,
I think that the explicit argument is a win.

Never mind. I agree with everything as long as we can remove this c-a-p
compat_do_execve().

Oleg.

--
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: 2011-03-02 17:39    [W:3.074 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site