Quoting Randy.Dunlap ([email protected]):
> > --- 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 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?
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]
