Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230913152238.905247-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20230913152238.905247-3-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <20230914-salzig-manifest-f6c3adb1b7b4@brauner> <CAJfpegs-sDk0++FjSZ_RuW5m-z3BTBQdu4T9QPtWwmSZ1_4Yvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230914-lockmittel-verknallen-d1a18d76ba44@brauner> <CAJfpegt-VPZP3ou-TMQFs1Xupj_iWA5ttC2UUFKh3E43EyCOQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230918-grafik-zutreffen-995b321017ae@brauner>
In-Reply-To: <20230918-grafik-zutreffen-995b321017ae@brauner>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:14:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOssrKfS79=+F0h=XPzJX2E6taxAPmEJEYPi4VBNQjgRR5ujqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] add statmnt(2) syscall
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
        Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 3:51=E2=80=AFPM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.o=
rg> wrote:

> I really would prefer a properly typed struct and that's what everyone
> was happy with in the session as well. So I would not like to change the
> main parameters.

I completely  agree.  Just would like to understand this point:

  struct statmnt *statmnt(u64 mntid, u64 mask, unsigned int flags);

What's not properly typed about this interface?

I guess the answer is that it's not a syscall interface, which will
have an added [void *buf, size_t bufsize], while the buffer sizing is
done by a simple libc wrapper.

Do you think that's a problem?  If so, why?

Thanks,
Miklos