Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:04:41 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, hackers@freebsd.org, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Jail syscalls Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908060903390.50383-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.990805110839.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 same' problem > which would seem to be not too uncommon.. If you are using the size for a version and you change the fields without ensuring the size changes, then you deserve all you get. In this kind of situation normally fields are simply appended to the structure. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908060903390.50383-100000>