On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Thiago Marcos P. Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Saturday, February 09, 2013 02:29:25 AM vi0oss wrote: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stdarg.h -> >>> >>> "providing variadic API functions without also providing equivalent >>> functions accepting va_list instead is considered a bad programming >>> practice." >>> >>> >>> Now thinking whether to stack "if(count==N) seccomp_rule_add(cxt, ac, >>> sy, arg[0], ..., argv[N-1])" lines or to just workaround API and hack up >>> _seccomp_rule_add to be available for me... >>> >>> (writing a simple command-line libseccomp tool: syscall_limiter) >> >> I generally stick to the policy of if you don't have a use for it, don't >> include it; especially when it comes to "forever" things like APIs. >> Personally I haven't had a need for a va_list version of the API so I've >> spent >> my time working on other things which I do need. >> >> I'll add your request to the todo list pile, but if it is important to you >> and >> you want to see it added to the library quickly I would encourage you to send >> a patch ... >> > > I submitted a patch for this last year: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29625574 > > At the time I suggested the function name to be vseccomp_rule_add > (inspired by printf and vprintf). I would do it differently today, > maybe calling it seccomp_rule_vadd(). > > Cheers,
After revisiting the mail thread, I see now that I actually wrote a seccomp_rule_add_va() ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ libseccomp-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libseccomp-discuss
