[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100825144954.233b6d3c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:49:54 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Wei-Jovi (NSN - CN/Hangzhou)" <wei-jovi.zhang@....com>,
mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]exit.c: support larger exit code
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:44:56 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 08/06, Zhang, Wei-Jovi (NSN - CN/Hangzhou) wrote:
> >
> > Nowadays userspace application use systemcall exit/exit_group only
> > support one byte exit code.
> > In some cases this exit code range is too small for some "big
> > application"(like telecom software, 255 is not enough).
> >
> > So we can give some "big application" a chance to get larger exit code
> > from child process.
> > For other application don't want use larger exit code, they can use
> > marco WEXITSTATUS to get lower one byte exit code.
> >
> > #define WEXITSTATUS(status) __WEXITSTATUS (__WAIT_INT (status))
> > --- stdlib.h
> > #define __WEXITSTATUS(status) (((status) & 0xff00) >> 8)
> > --- usrbits/waitstatus.h
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> > index ceffc67..8b13676 100644
> > --- a/kernel/exit.c
> > +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> > @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete_and_exit);
> >
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE1(exit, int, error_code)
> > {
> > - do_exit((error_code&0xff)<<8);
> > + do_exit(error_code << 8);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ do_group_exit(int exit_code)
> > */
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE1(exit_group, int, error_code)
> > {
> > - do_group_exit((error_code & 0xff) << 8);
> > + do_group_exit(error_code << 8);
> > /* NOTREACHED */
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Hmm. Looking at this patch, I am wondering what was the reason for the
> current one-byte limitation.
>
> I think the patch is fine. si_status, wo_stat are int too, so I do not
> see any possibility for truncation before reporting to user-space.
>
There are back-compatibility issues. If my crufty old child does
exit(0xff01);
and my crufty old parent does
if (exit_code == 1)
then I think the patch just broke my application. The company which
wrote it no longer exists and I don't have source...
Is it worth this risk?
Also, the patch was missing a signed-off-by: and was in some complicated
html-in-mime format.
--
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