From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F36C55189 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592102071E for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725811AbgDVIH4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 04:07:56 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:50856 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725810AbgDVIH4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 04:07:56 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 0F9E268C4E; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:07:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:07:52 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Martijn Coenen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Ming Lei , Narayan Kamath , Zimuzo Ezeozue , kernel-team@android.com, linux-block , LKML , Martijn Coenen , Bart Van Assche , Chaitanya Kulkarni Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] loop: Add LOOP_SET_FD_AND_STATUS ioctl. Message-ID: <20200422080752.GA24916@lst.de> References: <20200420080409.111693-1-maco@android.com> <20200420080409.111693-5-maco@android.com> <20200422061919.GA22819@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:06:17AM +0200, Martijn Coenen wrote: > > line at the top of lo_compat_ioctl, and switches the LOOP_SET_STATUS > > and LOOP_GET_STATUS case to it? > > Did you mean in regular lo_ioctl()? Yes, sorry. > eg something like this: > > @@ -1671,6 +1671,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, > fmode_t mode, > unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > { > struct loop_device *lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data; > + void __user *argp = (void __user *) arg; > int err; > > switch (cmd) { > @@ -1694,21 +1695,19 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, > fmode_t mode, > case LOOP_SET_STATUS: > err = -EPERM; > if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) { > - err = loop_set_status_old(lo, > - (struct loop_info __user *)arg); > + err = loop_set_status_old(lo, argp); > } > break; > case LOOP_GET_STATUS: > - return loop_get_status_old(lo, (struct loop_info __user *) arg); > + return loop_get_status_old(lo, argp); > case LOOP_SET_STATUS64: > err = -EPERM; > if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) { > - err = loop_set_status64(lo, > - (struct loop_info64 __user *) arg); > + err = loop_set_status64(lo, argp); > } > break; > case LOOP_GET_STATUS64: > - return loop_get_status64(lo, (struct loop_info64 __user *) arg); > + return loop_get_status64(lo, argp); Exactly!