[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230918-bestialisch-brutkasten-1fb34abdc33c@brauner>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:22:20 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] add statmnt(2) syscall
> So to be clear about your proposal: .mnt_root and .mountpoint are
> initialized by the caller to buffers that the kernel can copy paths
> into?
Yeah, u64 pointer to a buffer and a size (see e.g., @set_tid and
@set_tid_size for struct clone_args, @log_buf and @log_size and other
args in there).
>
> If there's an overflow (one of the buffers was too small) the syscall
> returns -EOVERFLOW?
Yeah, I mean we have to make some things their problem.
To me that is an acceptable compromise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists