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 05:58:22 -0600 |
| |
"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/
| |