On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 04:32:30PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 16:25, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The system call should please have a proper struct like you had in your > > first proposal. This is what I'm concerned about: > > > > int statmount(u64 mnt_id, > > struct statmnt __user *st, > > size_t size, > > unsigned int flags) > > > > instead of taking an void pointer. > > So you are not concerned about having ascii strings returned by the > syscall? I thought that was the main complaint. I'm not following. The original proposals were only returning strings even for basic binary data such as mount flags, propagation options, and so on and we're using the xattr interface for any type of information. What we're talking about here is a nicely typed struct which returns two paths @mnt_root and @mnt_point which can both be represented as u64 pointers with length parameters like we do in other binary structs such as bpf and clone3 and a few others. That is a compromise I can live with. I'm really trying to find as much common ground here as we can.
