[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201106000550.GD2555324@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:05:50 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc: jaegeuk@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] f2fs: fix compat F2FS_IOC_{MOVE,
GARBAGE_COLLECT}_RANGE
This patch is marked 2/2, but it seems you sent it out on its own. Patch series
are supposed to be resend in full; otherwise people can see just one patch and
have no context.
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:09:34AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Eric reported a ioctl bug in below link:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20201103032234.GB2875@sol.localdomain/
>
> That said, on some 32-bit architectures, u64 has only 32-bit alignment,
> notably i386 and x86_32, so that size of struct f2fs_gc_range compiled
> in x86_32 is 20 bytes, however the size in x86_64 is 24 bytes, binary
> compiled in x86_32 can not call F2FS_IOC_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE successfully
> due to mismatched value of ioctl command in between binary and f2fs
> module, similarly, F2FS_IOC_MOVE_RANGE will fail too.
>
> In this patch we introduce two ioctls for compatibility of above special
> 32-bit binary:
> - F2FS_IOC32_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE
> - F2FS_IOC32_MOVE_RANGE
>
It would be good to add a proper reported-by line, otherwise it's not clear who
"Eric" is (there are lots of Erics):
Reported-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> +static int __f2fs_ioc_gc_range(struct file *filp, struct f2fs_gc_range *range)
> {
> - struct inode *inode = file_inode(filp);
> - struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
> - struct f2fs_gc_range range;
> + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(file_inode(filp));
> u64 end;
> int ret;
>
> + if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi)))
> + return -EIO;
> + if (!f2fs_is_checkpoint_ready(sbi))
> + return -ENOSPC;
These two checkpoint-related checks weren't present in the original version.
Is that intentional?
> +static int __f2fs_ioc_move_range(struct file *filp,
> + struct f2fs_move_range *range)
> {
> - struct f2fs_move_range range;
> + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(file_inode(filp));
> struct fd dst;
> int err;
>
> + if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi)))
> + return -EIO;
> + if (!f2fs_is_checkpoint_ready(sbi))
> + return -ENOSPC;
> +
Likewise here.
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h b/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h
> index f00199a2e38b..8c14e88a9645 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h
> @@ -5,6 +5,10 @@
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/ioctl.h>
>
> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
> +#include <linux/compat.h>
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * f2fs-specific ioctl commands
> */
> @@ -65,6 +69,16 @@ struct f2fs_gc_range {
> __u64 len;
> };
>
> +#if defined(__KERNEL__) && defined(CONFIG_COMPAT)
> +struct compat_f2fs_gc_range {
> + u32 sync;
> + compat_u64 start;
> + compat_u64 len;
> +};
> +#define F2FS_IOC32_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE _IOW(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 11,\
> + struct compat_f2fs_gc_range)
> +#endif
> +
> struct f2fs_defragment {
> __u64 start;
> __u64 len;
> @@ -77,6 +91,17 @@ struct f2fs_move_range {
> __u64 len; /* size to move */
> };
>
> +#if defined(__KERNEL__) && defined(CONFIG_COMPAT)
> +struct compat_f2fs_move_range {
> + u32 dst_fd;
> + compat_u64 pos_in;
> + compat_u64 pos_out;
> + compat_u64 len;
> +};
> +#define F2FS_IOC32_MOVE_RANGE _IOWR(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9, \
> + struct compat_f2fs_move_range)
> +#endif
> +
> struct f2fs_flush_device {
> __u32 dev_num; /* device number to flush */
> __u32 segments; /* # of segments to flush */
> --
Did you consider instead putting these compat definitions in an internal kernel
header, or even just in the .c file, to avoid cluttering up the UAPI header?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists