Quoting Dave Hansen ([email protected]):
> On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 14:53 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > +struct uts_namespace *clone_uts_ns(struct uts_namespace *old_ns)
> > +{
> > + struct uts_namespace *ns;
> > +
> > + ns = kmalloc(sizeof(struct uts_namespace), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (ns) {
> > + memcpy(&ns->name, &old_ns->name, sizeof(ns->name));
> > + kref_init(&ns->kref);
> > + }
> > + return ns;
> > +}
>
> Very small nit...
>
> Would this memcpy be more appropriate as a strncpy()?
>
> > +int unshare_utsname(unsigned long unshare_flags, struct uts_namespace **new_uts)
> > +{
> > + if (unshare_flags & CLONE_NEWUTS) {
> > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +
> > + *new_uts = clone_uts_ns(current->uts_ns);
> > + if (!*new_uts)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Would it be a bit nicer to use the ERR_PTR() mechanism here instead of
> the double-pointer bit?
>
> I've always liked those a bit better because there's no hiding the fact
> of what is actually a return value from a function.
I agree. I was (grudgingly) copying the style from the other helpers
in fs/fork.c. Then I had to pull it out so it could cleanly return
-ENOMEM if !CONFIG_UTS, but I expect CONFIG_UTS to be yanked, and
this fn to be returned to fs/fork.c...
Might be worth a separate patch to change over all those helpers in
fork.c? (I think they were all brought in along with the sys_unshare
syscall)
Agreed on all your other points, thanks.
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
