On Tuesday 03 November 2009, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > Oren Laadan [orenl@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | > | > + /* > | > + * TODO: If size of clone_args is not what the kernel expects, it > | > + * could be that kernel is newer and has an extended structure. > | > + * When that happens, this check needs to be smarter (and we > | > + * need an additional copy_from_user()). For now, assume exact > | > + * match. > | > + */ > | > + if (kcs.clone_args_size != sizeof(kcs)) > | > + return -EINVAL; > | > | I wonder if this is a reason to move the clone_args_size outside the > | structure and pass it as a regular argument ? This will rid the > | (futuristic) additional copy-from-user (in case it causes a concern > | for clone performance ?) > > Your idea makes sense to me. > > Roland, Peter Arnd: do you have any concerns with removing clone_args_size > from the structure and making it a parameter ? As I mentioned before when it came up the first time, I think that the clone_args_size argument is completely bogus and unnecessary in the presence of the flags word, but I agree that if we have it, it should better be a separate argument. Arnd <>< _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
