[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111217174725.GW2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:47:25 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: ericvh@...il.com, rminnich@...dia.gov, lucho@...kov.net,
davem@...emloft.net, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
jvrao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use ATTR_* values from fs.h in userspace
facing structs
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 05:07:02PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> struct p9_iattr_dotl is userspace facing, but the 'valid' field is documented
> as follows:
>
> * @valid: bitfield specifying which fields are valid
> * same as in struct iattr
>
> Which means that the user has to know about kernel internal ATTR_* values.
>
> On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 23:30 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > They *are* kernel internal values and 9P is asking for trouble exposing
> > them. Translation: tomorrow we might reassign those as we bloody wish
> > and any userland code that happens to rely on their values will break.
> > At which point we'll handle complaints by pointing and laughing.
> >
> > It's a 9P bug; fix it there. Turning random internal constants into a part
> > of ABI is not going to work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
> ---
> fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/net/9p/9p.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c b/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c
> index 0b5745e..a948214 100644
> --- a/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c
> +++ b/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c
> @@ -523,6 +523,35 @@ v9fs_vfs_getattr_dotl(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct dentry *dentry,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +int v9fs_vfs_iattr_to_9p_valid(u32 ia_valid)
> +{
> + u32 valid = 0, i;
> + static u32 attr_map[][2] = {
> + {ATTR_MODE, P9_ATTR_MODE},
> + {ATTR_UID, P9_ATTR_UID},
> + {ATTR_SIZE, P9_ATTR_SIZE},
> + {ATTR_ATIME, P9_ATTR_ATIME},
> + {ATTR_MTIME, P9_ATTR_MTIME},
> + {ATTR_CTIME, P9_ATTR_CTIME},
> + {ATTR_ATIME_SET, P9_ATTR_ATIME_SET},
> + {ATTR_MTIME_SET, P9_ATTR_MTIME_SET},
> + {ATTR_FORCE, P9_ATTR_FORCE},
> + {ATTR_ATTR_FLAG, P9_ATTR_ATTR_FLAG},
> + {ATTR_KILL_SUID, P9_ATTR_KILL_SUID},
> + {ATTR_KILL_SGID, P9_ATTR_KILL_SGID},
> + {ATTR_FILE, P9_ATTR_FILE},
> + {ATTR_KILL_PRIV, P9_ATTR_KILL_PRIV},
> + {ATTR_OPEN, P9_ATTR_OPEN},
> + {ATTR_TIMES_SET, P9_ATTR_TIMES_SET},
> + };
a) ATTR_GID is lost
b) passing ATTR_FILE is bloody pointless; look at what it does and
realize that 9p doesn't as much as look at ia_file.
c) ATTR_KILL_PRIV is very dubious; what's the legitimate use of that
puppy in fs code?
Look, that's the problem with exposing this stuff to protocol; you don't
get clear semantics and are you seriously asking for trouble on kernel
changes. Suppose tomorrow we get rid of e.g. ATTR_KILL_PRIV; what are you
guys going to do? Hope that no 9p server has behaviour dependent on that
flag being set or cleared?
Don't turn the kernel internals into a part of ABI. And blind bulk remapping
of constants is exactly that...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists