[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230926-flatterhaft-nachverfolgen-4bf7f78cc0ee@brauner>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:13:53 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
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
> I also don't quite understand the dislike of variable-sized records.
> Don't getdents, inotify, Netlink all use them? And I think at least for
> Netlink, more stuff is added all the time?
Netlink is absolutely atrocious to work with because everything is
variable sized and figuring out the correct allocation size is a
complete nightmare even with the "helpful" macros that are provided.
The bigger problem however is the complete untypedness even of the most
basic things. For example, retrieving the mtu of a network interface
through netlink is a complete nightmare. getdents, inotify, fanotify,
open_by_handle_at()'s struct fiel_handle are all fine. But let's
absolutely not take netlink as a model for anything related to mounts.
And no one is against again variable sized records per se. I think we're
coming to a good compromise here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists