lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20091019174405.GE27627@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:44:05 -0700 From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de, Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Louis.Rilling@...labs.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, roland@...hat.com, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 9/10]: Define clone3() syscall On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Michael Kerrisk [mtk.manpages@...glemail.com] wrote: > | Hi Sukadev > | > | On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu > | <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > | > Here is an updated patch with the following interface: > | > > | > long sys_clone3(unsigned int flags_low, struct clone_args __user *cs, > | > pid_t *pids); > | > > | > There are just two other (minor) changes pending to this patchset: > | > > | > - PATCH 7: add a CLONE_UNUSED bit to VALID_CLONE_FLAGS(). > | > - PATCH 10: update documentation to reflect new interface. > | > > | > If this looks ok, we repost entire patchset next week. > | > | I know I'm late to this discussion, but why the name clone3()? It's > | not consistent with any other convention used fo syscall naming, > | AFAICS. I think a name like clone_ext() or clonex() (for extended) > | might make more sense. > > Sure, we talked about calling it clone_extended() and I can go back > to that. > > Only minor concern with that name was if this new call ever needs to > be extended, what would we call it :-). With clone3() we could add a > real/fake parameter and call it clone4() :-p Perhaps clone64 (somewhat like stat64 for example)? Cheers, -Matt Helsley -- 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