linux-kernel - Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:10:10 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:21:26 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> We need to come up with the best possible layout of arguments for the
> fallocate() system call. Various architectures have different
> requirements for how the arguments should look like. Since the mail
> chain has become huge, here is the summary of various inputs received
> so far.
> 
> Platform: s390
> --------------
> s390 prefers following layout:
> 
>    int fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode)
> 
> For details on why and how "int, int, loff_t, loff_t" is a problem on
> s390, please see Heiko's mail on 16th March. Here is the link:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg133595.html
> 
> Platform: ppc, arm
> ------------------
> ppc (32 bit) has a problem with "int, loff_t, loff_t, int" layout,
> since this will result in a pad between fd and offset, making seven
> arguments total - which is not supported by ppc32. It supports only
> 6 arguments. Thus the desired layout by ppc32 is:
> 
>    int fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> 
> Even ARM prefers above kind of layout. For details please see the
> definition of sys_arm_sync_file_range().

This is a clean-looking option.  Can s390 be changed to support seven-arg
syscalls?

> Option of loff_t => high u32 + low u32
> --------------------------------------
> Matthew and Russell have suggested another option of breaking each
> "loff_t" into two "u32"s. This will result in 6 arguments in total.
> 
> Following think that this is a good alternative:
> Matthew Wilcox, Russell King, Heiko Carstens
> 
> Following do not like this idea:
> Chris Wedgwood

It's a bit weird-looking, but the six-32-bit-args approach is simple
enought to understand and implement.  Presumably the glibc wrapper
would hide that detail from everyone.
 
> 
> What are your thoughts on this ? What layout should we finalize on ?
> Perhaps, since sync_file_range() system call has similar arguments, we
> can take hint from the challenges faced on implementing it on various
> architectures, and decide.
> 


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/