Message-ID: <50BF78D5.4060003@arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:39:49 +0000
From:	Serban Constantinescu <Serban.Constantinescu@....com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	"arve@...roid.com" <arve@...roid.com>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"ccross@...roid.com" <ccross@...roid.com>,
	"zach.pfeffer@...aro.org" <zach.pfeffer@...aro.org>,
	Dave Butcher <Dave.Butcher@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"arve@...roid.com" <arve@...roid.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Staging: android: binder: Add support for 32bit
 binder calls in a 64bit kernel

Sorry for the disclaimer e-mail.

On 04/12/12 16:17, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:44:13AM +0000, Serban Constantinescu wrote:
>> Android's IPC, Binder, does not support calls from a 32-bit userspace
>> in a 64 bit kernel. This patch adds support for syscalls coming from a
>> 32-bit userspace in a 64-bit kernel.
>>
>> Most of the changes were applied to types that change sizes between
>> 32 and 64 bit world. This will also fix some of the issues around
>> checking the size of an incoming transaction package in the ioctl
>> switch. Since  the transaction's ioctl number are generated using
>> _IOC(dir,type,nr,size), a different userspace size will generate
>> a different ioctl number, thus switching by _IOC_NR is a better
>> solution.
>>
>> The patch has been successfully tested on ARMv8 AEM and Versatile
>> Express V2P-CA9.
>
> Has it also been properly tested on a 32bit kernel and userspace to
> verify that nothing broke?

We have tested this patch set with a 32-bit kernel (on a Versatile
Express platform with an 4xA9 (ARMv7a)) as well as a 64-bit kernel (on
ARMv8 simulation platform). For both test cases we used the same 32-bit
Android file system (ICS, JB). Both platforms have been running browser
loads for days without any problems. We are currently extending the test
cases by running Android CTS test.

>
> I was wondering when someone would notice that this code was not going
> to work for this type of system, nice to see that you are working to fix
> it up.  But, I'll reask Dan's question here, why not use the compat32
> ioctl interface instead?  Shouldn't that be the easier way to do this?

Binder uses a 2 layer ioctl structure i.e. you can't know from the top
of the ioctl handler the size of the incoming package. Therefore adding
a wrapper for a 64bit kernel is not an option. Should a 64bit Android
ever appear we would probably want to support 32bit legacy applications.
For this we will need the same binder/ashmem driver to service both a
32bit application as well as a 64bit application in a 64bit kernel.
Therefore I guess the way forward will be to support 32bit file systems
in a 64bit kernel without any change to the existing user space
(implemented in this patch) and at some point extend the ioctl range
with the needed functionality for 64bit user space.

>
> Also, one meta comment, never use the uint32_t types, use the native
> kernel types (u32 and the like.)  If you are crossing the user/kernel
> boundry, use the other correct types for those data structures (__u32
> and the like).  What you did here is mix and match things so much that I
> really can't verify that it is all correct.

I have tried to in-line my changes with the types already used in the
driver but I will update to using the suggested types.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

Thanks for the feedback,
Serban Constantinescu
`

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists