Stefan, hi
Sorry for delay.
26.04.2018, 15:04, "Stefan Strogin" <stefan.stro...@gmail.com>:
> Hi David, Evgeniy,
>
> Sorry to bother you, but could you please comment about the UAPI change and
> the patch?
With 4-bytes pid_t everything looks fine, and I do not know arch where pid is
larger currently, so it looks safe.
David, please pull it into your tree, or should it go via different path?
Acked-by: Evgeniy Polyakov <z...@ioremap.net>
>> I don't see how it breaks UAPI. The point is that structures
>> coredump_proc_event and exit_proc_event are members of *union*
>> event_data, thus position of the existing data in the structure is
>> unchanged. Furthermore, this change won't increase size of struct
>> proc_event, because comm_proc_event (also a member of event_data) is
>> of bigger size than the changed structures.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, could you please explain what exactly will the change
>> break in UAPI?
>>
>> On 30/03/18 19:59, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Stefan Strogin <sstro...@cisco.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:12:47 +0300
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/cn_proc.h b/include/uapi/linux/cn_proc.h
>>>> index 68ff25414700..db210625cee8 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/cn_proc.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/cn_proc.h
>>>> @@ -116,12 +116,16 @@ struct proc_event {
>>>> struct coredump_proc_event {
>>>> __kernel_pid_t process_pid;
>>>> __kernel_pid_t process_tgid;
>>>> + __kernel_pid_t parent_pid;
>>>> + __kernel_pid_t parent_tgid;
>>>> } coredump;
>>>>
>>>> struct exit_proc_event {
>>>> __kernel_pid_t process_pid;
>>>> __kernel_pid_t process_tgid;
>>>> __u32 exit_code, exit_signal;
>>>> + __kernel_pid_t parent_pid;
>>>> + __kernel_pid_t parent_tgid;
>>>> } exit;
>>>>
>>>> } event_data;
>>>
>>> I don't think you can add these members without breaking UAPI.
