From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: move ioctl interface definitions to separated file
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:38:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201103183839.GA1273166@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c7e47bac-16e6-2038-3eb3-0fdb787ce977@huawei.com>
On 11/03, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/3 11:22, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 02:21:31PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > +#define F2FS_IOC_MOVE_RANGE _IOWR(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9, \
> > > + struct f2fs_move_range)
> > [...]
> > > +#define F2FS_IOC_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE _IOW(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 11, \
> > > + struct f2fs_gc_range)
> > [...]
> > > +
> > > +struct f2fs_gc_range {
> > > + __u32 sync;
> > > + __u64 start;
> > > + __u64 len;
> > > +};
> > [...]
> > > +struct f2fs_move_range {
> > > + __u32 dst_fd; /* destination fd */
> > > + __u64 pos_in; /* start position in src_fd */
> > > + __u64 pos_out; /* start position in dst_fd */
> > > + __u64 len; /* size to move */
> > > +};
> >
> > These two structs are weird because there is implicit padding between the __u32
> > field and the following __u64 field on some 32-bit architectures (e.g. x86_32)
> > but not others (e.g. arm32).
> >
> > But f2fs_compat_ioctl() doesn't handle these two ioctls specially, but rather
> > just calls through to f2fs_ioctl(). That's wrong, and it means that
> > F2FS_IOC_MOVE_RANGE and F2FS_IOC_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE won't work when called
> > from an x86_32 binary on an x86_64 kernel.
>
> Nice catch!
>
> >
> > So something needs to be fixed. I wonder if it's safe to just explicitly add
> > the padding field after the fact. If no one is actually using these two ioctls
> > in a case where both userspace and the kernel lack the implicit padding (e.g.,
> > x86_32 userspace with x86_32 kernel), it should be fine...
>
> IIRC, Jaegeuk added those interfaces, I hope it's not the requirement from other
> f2fs userspace developers...if it is, there may be users.
>
> I found one patch in ext4 which fixes the similar issue, I guess we can fix this
> with the same way, thoughts?
Agreed. Please fix along with f2fs-tools/f2fs_io.
>
> commit 4d92dc0f00a775dc2e1267b0e00befb783902fe7
> Author: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> Date: Mon May 17 06:00:00 2010 -0400
>
> ext4: Fix compat EXT4_IOC_ADD_GROUP
>
> struct ext4_new_group_input needs to be converted because u64 has
> only 32-bit alignment on some 32-bit architectures, notably i386.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > - Eric
> > .
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: move ioctl interface definitions to separated file
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:38:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201103183839.GA1273166@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c7e47bac-16e6-2038-3eb3-0fdb787ce977@huawei.com>
On 11/03, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/3 11:22, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 02:21:31PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > +#define F2FS_IOC_MOVE_RANGE _IOWR(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9, \
> > > + struct f2fs_move_range)
> > [...]
> > > +#define F2FS_IOC_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE _IOW(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 11, \
> > > + struct f2fs_gc_range)
> > [...]
> > > +
> > > +struct f2fs_gc_range {
> > > + __u32 sync;
> > > + __u64 start;
> > > + __u64 len;
> > > +};
> > [...]
> > > +struct f2fs_move_range {
> > > + __u32 dst_fd; /* destination fd */
> > > + __u64 pos_in; /* start position in src_fd */
> > > + __u64 pos_out; /* start position in dst_fd */
> > > + __u64 len; /* size to move */
> > > +};
> >
> > These two structs are weird because there is implicit padding between the __u32
> > field and the following __u64 field on some 32-bit architectures (e.g. x86_32)
> > but not others (e.g. arm32).
> >
> > But f2fs_compat_ioctl() doesn't handle these two ioctls specially, but rather
> > just calls through to f2fs_ioctl(). That's wrong, and it means that
> > F2FS_IOC_MOVE_RANGE and F2FS_IOC_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE won't work when called
> > from an x86_32 binary on an x86_64 kernel.
>
> Nice catch!
>
> >
> > So something needs to be fixed. I wonder if it's safe to just explicitly add
> > the padding field after the fact. If no one is actually using these two ioctls
> > in a case where both userspace and the kernel lack the implicit padding (e.g.,
> > x86_32 userspace with x86_32 kernel), it should be fine...
>
> IIRC, Jaegeuk added those interfaces, I hope it's not the requirement from other
> f2fs userspace developers...if it is, there may be users.
>
> I found one patch in ext4 which fixes the similar issue, I guess we can fix this
> with the same way, thoughts?
Agreed. Please fix along with f2fs-tools/f2fs_io.
>
> commit 4d92dc0f00a775dc2e1267b0e00befb783902fe7
> Author: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> Date: Mon May 17 06:00:00 2010 -0400
>
> ext4: Fix compat EXT4_IOC_ADD_GROUP
>
> struct ext4_new_group_input needs to be converted because u64 has
> only 32-bit alignment on some 32-bit architectures, notably i386.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > - Eric
> > .
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-03 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-02 6:21 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: move ioctl interface definitions to separated file Chao Yu
2020-11-02 6:21 ` Chao Yu
2020-11-03 3:22 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2020-11-03 3:22 ` Eric Biggers
2020-11-03 8:17 ` Chao Yu
2020-11-03 8:17 ` Chao Yu
2020-11-03 18:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2020-11-03 18:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201103183839.GA1273166@google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.