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]

Message-ID: <20070405112619.GA19982@amitarora.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:56:19 +0530
From:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	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 Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:14:17AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Wouldn't
> int fallocate(loff_t offset, loff_t len, int fd, int mode)
> work on both s390 and ppc/arm?  glibc will certainly wrap it and
> reorder the arguments as needed, so there is no need to keep fd first.

This should work on all the platforms. The only concern I can think of
here is the convention being followed till now, where all the entities on
which the action has to be performed by the kernel (say fd, file/device
name, pid etc.) is the first argument of the system call. If we can live
with the small exception here, fine.

Or else, we may have to implement the 

  int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len

as the layout of arguments here. I think only s390 will have a problem
with this, and we can think of a workaround for it (may be similar to
what ARM did to implement sync_file_range() system call)   :

asmlinkage long sys_s390_fallocate(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int mode)
{
        return sys_fallocate(fd, offset, len, mode);
}

To me both the approaches look slightly unconventional. But, we need to
compromise somewhere to make things work on all the platforms.

Any thoughts on which one of the above should we finalize on ?

Thanks!
--
Regards,
Amit Arora
-
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/