The members of the new_utsname structure are defined with magic numbers that *should* correspond to the constant __NEW_UTS_LEN+1. Everywhere else, code assumes this and uses the constant, so this patch makes the structure match. Originally suggested by Serge here: https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-March/016258.html Signed-off-by: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: serue@xxxxxxxxxx --- include/linux/utsname.h | 12 ++++++------ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/utsname.h b/include/linux/utsname.h index 1123267..3656b30 100644 --- a/include/linux/utsname.h +++ b/include/linux/utsname.h @@ -22,12 +22,12 @@ struct old_utsname { }; struct new_utsname { - char sysname[65]; - char nodename[65]; - char release[65]; - char version[65]; - char machine[65]; - char domainname[65]; + char sysname[__NEW_UTS_LEN + 1]; + char nodename[__NEW_UTS_LEN + 1]; + char release[__NEW_UTS_LEN + 1]; + char version[__NEW_UTS_LEN + 1]; + char machine[__NEW_UTS_LEN + 1]; + char domainname[__NEW_UTS_LEN + 1]; }; #ifdef __KERNEL__ -- 1.5.6.3 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
