On 09/18/2014 04:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Sure, you will never get a full compatibility on that regard
while backwards compatibility needs to be guaranteed on the
other hand. I looked at perf_copy_attr() implementation and I
think that we should mimic it in a very similar way as it
exactly solves what we need.
For example, it will return with -EINVAL for (size > PAGE_SIZE)
and (size < PERF_ATTR_SIZE_VER0) where PAGE_SIZE has been chosen
as an arbitrary hard upper limit where it is believed that it will
never grow beyond that large limit in future.
So this is a more loose constraint than what we currently do,
that is, -EINVAL on (size > sizeof(attr)) where attr is the
currently known size of a specific kernel. That would at least
be a start, you won't be able to cover everything though, but
it would allow to address the issue raised when running with
a basic feature set.
you missed my point. We should not 'do a start', since it
doesn't help user space in the long run and only makes
kernel more complex.
Sorry, I don't think I missed your point. But if you see things
differently, fair enough, it was just a suggestion.
--
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
