[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496CE567.1040808@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:03:03 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderlinux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: headers - fix export private data to userspace
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | > |
> | > | You can introduce symbols into the general namespace if *and only if*
> | > | they are in a header file that is invoked directly by the user. In
> | > | other words, such a header file is unusable by libc, but setup.h doesn't
> | > | contain anything needed by libc in the first place.
> | > |
> | > | -hpa
> | > |
> | >
> | > So we could just fence it by __KERNEL__?
> | >
> |
> | We might, as userspace shouldn't need COMMAND_LINE_SIZE anyway (see
> | other post), but I'm rather confused as how you got that from what I
> | wrote above.
> |
>
> The thing is that kernel headers are not only touched by libc.
> Someone could write a program and include setup.h there.
> Or I translated you wrong :)
>
My whole point was that there are classes of symbols which may be
legitimately used by userspace *applications*, but not by libc. Those
can live in the general namespace since they are included by explicit
user command.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists