Dmitry, You certainly understand the user-space needs much better than me. I am just trying to understand your point. On 01/17, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > We should accept larger user_size from the very beginning, so that in case > the structure grows in the future, the userspace that sicks to the current > set of supported features would be still able to work with older kernels. This is what I can't understand, perhaps I have a blind spot here ;) Could you provide an example (even absolutely artificial) of possible extension which can help me to understand? > We cannot just use sizeof(info) because it depends on the alignment of > __u64. Hmm why? I thought that the kernel already depends on the "natural" alignment? And if we can't, then PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_SIZE_VER0 added by this patch makes no sense? Sorry I guess I must have missed something, I am sick today. > Also, I don't think we need to fill with zeroes the trailing > padding bytes of the structure as we are not going to use them in any way. At least we seem to agree here ;) Oleg.
