lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/6] sys_indirect RFC - sys_indirect core
On 6/29/07, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> +int indirect_set_context(struct fsa_context *ator,
> + const struct indirect_ctx __user * __user *ctxs,
> + unsigned int nctxs, struct indirect_op **first)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> + int error;
> + u32 ctx;
> + const struct indirect_ctx __user *pctx;
> + struct indirect_op *new;
> +
> + *first = NULL;
> + for (i = 0; i < nctxs; i++) {
> + if (get_user(pctx, &ctxs[i]) || get_user(ctx, &pctx->ctx))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + if (unlikely(ctx >= ARRAY_SIZE(inprocs) || !inprocs[ctx].set))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + error = (*inprocs[ctx].set)(ator, pctx, &new);
> + if (unlikely(error))
> + return error;
> + new->next = *first;
> + *first = new;
> + }

If you use one single struct as explained in my last mail all this
shouldn't be necessary. The sys_indirect syscall would simply points
current->ind_ctx to a kernel-copy of the struct. Then call the
syscall and on return clear current->ind_ctx.

In the affected syscalls we can then test whether current->ind_ctx is
NULL and if not, enable the extra functionality.

These callbacks etc seem to be far too expensive and complicated.
-
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: 2007-06-30 03:57    [W:0.059 / U:1.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site