Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxx):
> >>>> The proposed interface for clone_extended() is:
> >>>>
> >>>> struct clone_tid_info {
> >>>> void *parent_tid; /* parent_tid_ptr parameter */
> >>>> void *child_tid; /* child_tid_ptr parameter */
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> struct pid_set {
> >>>> int num_pids;
> >>>> pid_t *pids;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> int clone_extended(int flags_low, int flags_high, void *child_stack,
> >>>> void *unused, struct clone_tid_info *tid_ptrs,
> >>>> struct pid_set *pid_setp);
> >>> I was thinking additional flags would be passed in the (renamed)
> >>> struct pid_set.
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> But maybe in (renamed) 'struct clone_info' instead of 'struct pid_set' ?
> >>
> >> I vaguely recall a strong preference to not require copy-from-user
> >> during a fast-path clone, because it may hurt performance.
> >>
> >> *If* this is the case, then maybe place extra flags among the
> >> "base" args, or at least a CLONE_EXTRA would indicate that more
> >> arguments need to be pulled from user-space ?
> >
> > Wouldn't passing NULL for struct clone_info suffice?
>
> :o
>
> Actually, I misread the original prototype, and I prefer Suka's
> current suggestion.
I think Suka's suggestion is again inherently limited (in # of
clone flags) and will force even uglier syscalls for each arch than the
previous one already does.
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
