OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction
Re: [PATCH 4/9] namespaces: utsname: switch to using uts namespaces [message #3259 is a reply to message #3258] Fri, 19 May 2006 02:42 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
rdunlap is currently offline  rdunlap
Messages: 11
Registered: May 2006
Junior Member
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:21:14 -0500 Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

> Quoting Randy.Dunlap (rdunlap@xenotime.net):
> > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c
> > > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/sys_i386.c
> > > @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ asmlinkage int sys_uname(struct old_utsn
> > > if (!name)
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > down_read(&uts_sem);
> > > - err=copy_to_user(name, &system_utsname, sizeof (*name));
> > > + err=copy_to_user(name, utsname(), sizeof (*name));
> >
> > It would be really nice if you would fix spacing while you are here,
> > like a space a each side of '='.
> >
> > and a space after ',' in the function calls below.
>
> Ok. Then in blocks like the following:
>
> > > - error = __copy_to_user(&name->sysname,&system_utsname.sysname,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > + error = __copy_to_user(&name->sysname,&utsname()->sysname,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > error |= __put_user(0,name->sysname+__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->nodename,&system_utsname.nodename,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->nodename,&utsname()->nodename,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > error |= __put_user(0,name->nodename+__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->release,&system_utsname.release,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->release,&utsname()->release,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > error |= __put_user(0,name->release+__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->version,&system_utsname.version,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->version,&utsname()->version,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > error |= __put_user(0,name->version+__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > - error |= __copy_to_user(&name->machine,&system_utsname.machine,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > + error |= __copy_to_user(&name->machine,&utsname()->machine,__OLD_UTS_LEN);
> > > error |= __put_user(0,name->machine+__OLD_UTS_LEN);
>
> Should I leave it as is, to keep the consistent look? Change just the
> lines I'm editing, making it inconsistent? Or change the whole block,
> making my patch seem a bit larger than it really is, but giving the
> nicest end result?

I'd go for the latter, along with my other comment of breaking them
to fit into 80 columns also.

> I suppose I could insert a separate patchset fixing up the spacing in
> those blocks but making no real changes at all, then apply my patch on
> top of that...?
>
> > > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/syscall.c
> > > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/syscall.c
> > > @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ out:
> > > */
> > > asmlinkage int sys_uname(struct old_utsname __user * name)
> > > {
> > > - if (name && !copy_to_user(name, &system_utsname, sizeof (*name)))
> > > + if (name && !copy_to_user(name, utsname(), sizeof (*name)))
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> Ok, so long as these functions accept a utsname, we should be able to
> just change what we pass in to these functions to being the namespace's
> utsname, right? Or am I missing the really nasty part?

The nodename field changes from 65 chars (struct new_utsname) to 256 chars
(struct posix_utsname), and nodename is not the final field in the
struct, so it's no longer safe to do a simple struct copy. Each
field in the struct needs to be copied individually if the target is
not a struct posix_utsname. It's not rocket science.

---
~Randy

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction
Next Topic: [PATCH] namespaces: uts_ns: make information visible via /proc/PID/uts directory
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Mon Jul 21 06:28:46 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06998 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers