On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:54 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The cost of the compat layer must be considered and weighted
> against this cast, which I think is really no big deal.
>
>> I think compat layer is a better option.
>
> It's overhead you'll have to support forever, I think you should
> reconsider.
>
> All of the "ugly casting" will be hidden, or can be hidden, in the
> syscall wrappers and/or interfaces in userspace.
ahh, ok. I thought you're strongly against any type of casts.
In such case I can get rid of 'union bpf_attr' as well and simply
define a struct per command, then syscall will look like:
sys_bpf(int cmd, void __user *attr, unsigned int size);
and uapi/linux/bpf.h will have:
struct bpf_prog_load_attr { /* for BPF_PROG_LOAD cmd */
__u32 prog_type;
__u32 insn_cnt;
__aligned_u64 insns;
__aligned_u64 license;
__u32 log_level;
__u32 log_size;
__aligned_u64 log_buf;
};
and similar for other commands.
no compat layer and type checking will be done
by syscall wrappers. Ok?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
