From: Arnd B. <ar...@ar...> - 2008-08-29 19:48:27
|
On Friday 29 August 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > However it is a largely an insane idea. I fully agree. > Given the pain it is to maintain ioctls I would be very surprised if we wanted > to open up that pandoras box even wider by allowing arbitrary user space > processes to support random ioctls. How would you do 32/64bit support > and the like? I think that is not too much of a problem: Just like the file operations in the kernel have two callbacks (ioctl and compat_ioctl), you need to provide both operations from user space if there is a difference between them, or at least a stub otherwise. Arnd <>< |