On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 08:39:41AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/3/20 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > --- > > plugins/ocaml/NBDKit.mli | 7 +++++++ > > plugins/ocaml/NBDKit.ml | 4 ++++ > > plugins/ocaml/bindings.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/plugins/ocaml/NBDKit.mli b/plugins/ocaml/NBDKit.mli > > index ececd5fd..8abfeb49 100644 > > --- a/plugins/ocaml/NBDKit.mli > > +++ b/plugins/ocaml/NBDKit.mli > > @@ -162,3 +162,10 @@ val shutdown : unit -> unit > > > > (** Print a debug message when nbdkit is in verbose mode. *) > > val debug : ('a, unit, string, unit) format4 -> 'a > > + > > +(** Binding for [nbdkit_peer_pid]. *) > > +val peer_pid : unit -> int > > +(** Binding for [nbdkit_peer_uid]. *) > > +val peer_uid : unit -> int > > +(** Binding for [nbdkit_peer_gid]. *) > > +val peer_gid : unit -> int > > Is int sufficient on 32-bit platforms, or do you need int32? But on > 64-bit platforms, I don't see a system ever having enough valid > uid_t/gid_t/pid_t to overflow int to the point that int64 would have > been better.
We shouldn't assume that IDs are allocated sequentially, they might be sparsely allocated. eg with containers and user namespaces, ranges of UIDs/GIDs are reserved for specific users / containers to utilize. eg on Fedora, my user account is reserved 65536 UIDs, starting at an offset of 100000. So it is entirely conceivable there could be a system which has very few UIDs/GIDs/PIDs in use, but none the less has some allocated from a range that is larger than INT32MAX Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list Libguestfs@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs