Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we basically have two choices:
* Pass the sizeof(struct) as part of the system call. Please, not as
part of the structure! That would make this syscall the odd-man-out
compared to all the other syscalls that take size
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 04-Aug-99 Matthew Dillon wrote:
I kinda like the second choice the best but the first choice is what
most
other system calls use.
That doesn't make it right =)
The second avoids the 'the data is different but the size is the
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com writes:
I think we basically have two choices:
* Pass the sizeof(struct) as part of the system call. Please, not as
part of the structure! That would make this syscall the odd-man-out
compared to all the other syscalls that
On 4 Aug 1999, Assar Westerlund wrote:
"Brian F. Feldman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Actually, with interfaces like this you should generally pass a pointer
to the structure in userspace, and stick a version number constant in
the beginning
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Doug Rabson wrote:
The argument for versioning is not simply because the size of ip_number
might change (it should be a sockaddr) but because other fields might be
added or removed. To avoid allocating a new syscall whenever this happens,
the structure should be
"Brian F. Feldman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I read it, sockaddr is a transparent type (overloaded, as it were).
So we would use something like:
struct jail {
...
struct sockaddr;
char [SOCK_MAXADDRLEN - sizeof(struct sockaddr)];
On 04-Aug-99 Matthew Dillon wrote:
I kinda like the second choice the best but the first choice is what
most
other system calls use.
That doesn't make it right =)
The second avoids the 'the data is different but the size is the same' problem
which would seem to be not too
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Speaking of the jail() syscall -- it really needs to be revamped a
little before people really start using it wholeheartedly. The size
of the jail structure needs to be passed in the syscall to allow
backwards
compatibility when
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Speaking of the jail() syscall -- it really needs to be revamped a
little before people really start using it wholeheartedly. The size
of the jail structure needs to be passed in the
Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org writes:
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Actually, with interfaces like this you should generally pass a pointer
to the structure in userspace, and stick a version number constant in
the beginning of the structure. The size is often not enough
On 4 Aug 1999, Assar Westerlund wrote:
Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org writes:
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Actually, with interfaces like this you should generally pass a pointer
to the structure in userspace, and stick a version number constant in
the beginning of
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Doug Rabson wrote:
The argument for versioning is not simply because the size of ip_number
might change (it should be a sockaddr) but because other fields might be
added or removed. To avoid allocating a new syscall whenever this happens,
the structure should be versioned.
Brian F. Feldman gr...@freebsd.org writes:
As I read it, sockaddr is a transparent type (overloaded, as it were).
So we would use something like:
struct jail {
...
struct sockaddr;
char [SOCK_MAXADDRLEN - sizeof(struct sockaddr)];
:The argument for versioning is not simply because the size of ip_number
:might change (it should be a sockaddr) but because other fields might be
:added or removed. To avoid allocating a new syscall whenever this happens,
:the structure should be versioned.
:
:Putting sizeof(whatever) at the
On 04-Aug-99 Matthew Dillon wrote:
I kinda like the second choice the best but the first choice is what
most
other system calls use.
That doesn't make it right =)
The second avoids the 'the data is different but the size is the same' problem
which would seem to be not too
Speaking of the jail() syscall -- it really needs to be revamped a
little before people really start using it wholeheartedly. The size
of the jail structure needs to be passed in the syscall to allow backwards
compatibility when things change such as, for example, the size of
Speaking of the jail() syscall -- it really needs to be revamped a
little before people really start using it wholeheartedly. The size
of the jail structure needs to be passed in the syscall to allow backwards
compatibility when things change such as, for example, the size
According to Brian F. Feldman:
Jail is in RELENG_3
Not according to the CVS logs which lists kern_jail.c only for CURRENT.
===
File: kern_jail.c Status: Up-to-date
Working revision:1.3 Fri Apr 30 06:51:51 1999
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Brian F. Feldman:
Jail is in RELENG_3
[ text explaining my wrongness]
Ack. My memory worked in conjunction with my imagination to trick me.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
Speaking of the jail() syscall -- it really needs to be revamped a
little before people really start using it wholeheartedly. The size
of the jail structure needs to be passed in the syscall to allow backwards
compatibility when things change such as, for example, the size of the
Speaking of the jail() syscall -- it really needs to be revamped a
little before people really start using it wholeheartedly. The size
of the jail structure needs to be passed in the syscall to allow backwards
compatibility when things change such as, for example, the size of
According to Sebastien GIORIA:
My process decision is in the next 6 months, so if some
guys from core (particuliary PHK; if I remenber this is
the responsible of the jail subsystem).
It will probably not be very easy putting this into 3.x, considering the
number of files concerned although
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ollivier Robert wrote:
It will probably not be very easy putting this into 3.x, considering the
number of files concerned although the number of lines changed is not that
big.
Jail is in RELENG_3
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL
Hi guys,
I'm in the process of evaluating (next month) some box who
made the same that jail syscall but this is linux boxes :-( or Solaris
boxes. So, If I can make a FreeBSD-STABLE (3.X box) working with
jail in the competition, I've got a good point for my boss.
We are currently working
According to Sebastien GIORIA:
My process decision is in the next 6 months, so if some
guys from core (particuliary PHK; if I remenber this is
the responsible of the jail subsystem).
It will probably not be very easy putting this into 3.x, considering the
number of files concerned although
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ollivier Robert wrote:
It will probably not be very easy putting this into 3.x, considering the
number of files concerned although the number of lines changed is not that
big.
Jail is in RELENG_3
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=-
26 matches
Mail list logo
