Re: [PATCH 4/9] namespaces: utsname: switch to using uts namespaces

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Fri May 19 2006 - 05:06:43 EST

"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, 18 May 2006 10:49:36 -0500 Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Replace references to system_utsname to the per-process uts namespace
>> where appropriate. This includes things like uname.
>> Changes: Per Eric Biederman's comments, use the per-process uts namespace
>> for ELF_PLATFORM, sunrpc, and parts of net/ipv4/ipconfig.c
>> Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>

> OK, here's my big comment/question. I want to see <nodename> increased to
> 256 bytes (per current POSIX), so each field of struct <variant>_utsname
> needs be copied individually (I think) instead of doing a single
> struct copy.

Where is it specified? Looking at the spec as SUSV3 I don't see a size
specified for nodename.

> I've been working on this for the past few weeks (among other
> things). Sorry about the timing.
> I could send patches for this against mainline in a few days,
> but I'll be glad to listen to how it would be easiest for all of us
> to handle.
> I'm probably a little over half done with my patches.
> They will end up adding a lib/utsname.c that has functions for:
> put_oldold_uname() // to user
> put_old_uname() // to user
> put_new_uname() // to user
> put_posix_uname() // to user

Sounds reasonable, if we really need a 256 byte nodename.

As long as they take a pointer to the appropriate utsname
structure these patches should not fundamentally conflict.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at