News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Getting Past C by kazinator on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @05:24PM (#13313752)
safeioctl may have to contain a redundant switch (or more OOP-style dipatch across multiple functions) on the command code in order to convert the safe style arguments to each specific low level ioctl call. That sort of thing can easily explode in line count. I can see exactly what geofft is talking about.
Re:Getting Past C by tedunangst on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @06:00PM (#13314064)
It's not like your rust safe ioctl wrapper is going to be any less code, though.
Re:Getting Past C by jstimpfle on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @05:49PM (#13313969)
Ok - it's true that ioctl has a generic interface (hadn't remembered that). We can think of it as hundreds of functions, not just one. So wrapping ioctl "completely" is correspondingly a lot of work.

However the point was of course to make a safe-land layer which contains the needed functionality. The point was never to have a function "safeioctl" in the first place.