[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHpGcMJ2EScNiPapyugC_fz+AEhdpKmx3VmYjTH_2me8WLxB2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:17:06 +0200
From: Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
Steve Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/18] gfs2: add compat_ioctl support
Am So., 18. Aug. 2019 um 21:32 Uhr schrieb Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 7:32 PM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:45 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > + /* These are just misnamed, they actually get/put from/to user an int */
> > > + switch(cmd) {
> > > + case FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS:
> > > + cmd = FS_IOC_GETFLAGS;
> > > + break;
> > > + case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
> > > + cmd = FS_IOC_SETFLAGS;
> > > + break;
> >
> > I'd like the code to be more explicit here:
> >
> > case FITRIM:
> > case FS_IOC_GETFSLABEL:
> > break;
> > default:
> > return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>
> I've looked at it again: if we do this, the function actually becomes
> longer than the native gfs2_ioctl(). Should we just make a full copy then?
I don't think the length of gfs2_compat_ioctl is really an issue as
long as the function is that simple.
> static long gfs2_compat_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> unsigned long arg)
> {
> switch(cmd) {
> case FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS:
> return gfs2_get_flags(filp, (u32 __user *)arg);
> case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
> return gfs2_set_flags(filp, (u32 __user *)arg);
> case FITRIM:
> return gfs2_fitrim(filp, (void __user *)arg);
> case FS_IOC_GETFSLABEL:
> return gfs2_getlabel(filp, (char __user *)arg);
> }
>
> return -ENOTTY;
> }
Don't we still need the compat_ptr conversion? That seems to be the
main point of having a compat_ioctl operation.
> > Should we feed this through the gfs2 tree?
>
> A later patch that removes the FITRIM handling from fs/compat_ioctl.c
> depends on it, so I'd like to keep everything together.
Ok, fine for me.
Thanks,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists