All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: mfasheh@suse.com, joel.becker@oracle.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
	xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	Ankit Jain <me@ankitjain.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Add new pre-allocation ioctls to vfs for compatibility with legacy xfs ioctls
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:48:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49856FE6.8020601@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200901310248.42820.arnd@arndb.de>

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Is this written in a standard somewhere?  Is it guaranteed?
> 
> Alignment is defined in the architecture psABI documents. 
> Unfortunately, many of them were written before the 'long long'
> type became part of the C standard, so it's not strictly guaranteed.
> AFAICT, the alignment of __u64 on x86 is the same as the alignment
> of 'double' by convention.
> 
> However, the problem is well-understood: x86 is the only one
> that has a problem in 32/64 bit compat mode. m68k has similar
> issues with 16/32 bit integers, but those don't apply here.
> 
>> If some (perhaps non-gcc) compiler were to lay this out differently
>> (perhaps with suitable command-line options) then that's liveable
>> with - as long as the kernel never changes the layout.  Of course
>> it would be better to avoid this if poss.
> 
> If a compiler was using irregular structure alignment, all sorts of
> library interfaces would break. The kernel ABI is only a small part
> of the problem then.
> 
>> The other potential issue with a structure like this is that there's a
>> risk that it will lead us to copy four bytes of uninitialised kernel
>> memory out to userspace.
>>
>> IOW, it seems a generally bad idea to rely upon compiler-added padding
>> for this sort of thing.
> 
> Agreed in general, but the whole point of this particular patch was to
> provide compatibility with an interface that has been part of XFS for
> many years.
> Linux already has a better interface for new users (sys_fallocate), so
> changing the patch would not be helpful and not provide any advantage.
> 
> There is also no leak of uninitialized data here, because this structure
> is only read, never written.
> 
> 	Arnd <><
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +struct space_resv {
> +	__s16		l_type;
> +	__s16		l_whence;
> +	__s64		l_start;
> +	__s64		l_len;		/* len == 0 means until end of file */
> +	__s32		l_sysid;
> +	__u32		l_pid;
> +	__s32		l_pad[4];	/* reserve area			    */
> +};

What about telling the compiler exactly what you said above, just
to be sure we all mean the same thing. (And as documentation for new
comers):

+struct space_resv_64 {
+	__s16		l_type;
+	__s16		l_whence;
+	__u32		reserved;
+	__s64		l_start;
+	__s64		l_len;		/* len == 0 means until end of file */
+	__s32		l_sysid;
+	__u32		l_pid;
+	__s32		l_pad[4];	/* reserve area			    */
+} __packed;

And define another one for x86_32

Boaz

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ankit Jain <me@ankitjain.org>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mfasheh@suse.com,
	joel.becker@oracle.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] fs: Add new pre-allocation ioctls to vfs for compatibility with legacy xfs ioctls
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:48:54 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49856FE6.8020601@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200901310248.42820.arnd@arndb.de>

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Is this written in a standard somewhere?  Is it guaranteed?
> 
> Alignment is defined in the architecture psABI documents. 
> Unfortunately, many of them were written before the 'long long'
> type became part of the C standard, so it's not strictly guaranteed.
> AFAICT, the alignment of __u64 on x86 is the same as the alignment
> of 'double' by convention.
> 
> However, the problem is well-understood: x86 is the only one
> that has a problem in 32/64 bit compat mode. m68k has similar
> issues with 16/32 bit integers, but those don't apply here.
> 
>> If some (perhaps non-gcc) compiler were to lay this out differently
>> (perhaps with suitable command-line options) then that's liveable
>> with - as long as the kernel never changes the layout.  Of course
>> it would be better to avoid this if poss.
> 
> If a compiler was using irregular structure alignment, all sorts of
> library interfaces would break. The kernel ABI is only a small part
> of the problem then.
> 
>> The other potential issue with a structure like this is that there's a
>> risk that it will lead us to copy four bytes of uninitialised kernel
>> memory out to userspace.
>>
>> IOW, it seems a generally bad idea to rely upon compiler-added padding
>> for this sort of thing.
> 
> Agreed in general, but the whole point of this particular patch was to
> provide compatibility with an interface that has been part of XFS for
> many years.
> Linux already has a better interface for new users (sys_fallocate), so
> changing the patch would not be helpful and not provide any advantage.
> 
> There is also no leak of uninitialized data here, because this structure
> is only read, never written.
> 
> 	Arnd <><
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +struct space_resv {
> +	__s16		l_type;
> +	__s16		l_whence;
> +	__s64		l_start;
> +	__s64		l_len;		/* len == 0 means until end of file */
> +	__s32		l_sysid;
> +	__u32		l_pid;
> +	__s32		l_pad[4];	/* reserve area			    */
> +};

What about telling the compiler exactly what you said above, just
to be sure we all mean the same thing. (And as documentation for new
comers):

+struct space_resv_64 {
+	__s16		l_type;
+	__s16		l_whence;
+	__u32		reserved;
+	__s64		l_start;
+	__s64		l_len;		/* len == 0 means until end of file */
+	__s32		l_sysid;
+	__u32		l_pid;
+	__s32		l_pad[4];	/* reserve area			    */
+} __packed;

And define another one for x86_32

Boaz

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ankit Jain <me@ankitjain.org>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mfasheh@suse.com,
	joel.becker@oracle.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Add new pre-allocation ioctls to vfs for compatibility with legacy xfs ioctls
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:48:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49856FE6.8020601@panasas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200901310248.42820.arnd@arndb.de>

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Is this written in a standard somewhere?  Is it guaranteed?
> 
> Alignment is defined in the architecture psABI documents. 
> Unfortunately, many of them were written before the 'long long'
> type became part of the C standard, so it's not strictly guaranteed.
> AFAICT, the alignment of __u64 on x86 is the same as the alignment
> of 'double' by convention.
> 
> However, the problem is well-understood: x86 is the only one
> that has a problem in 32/64 bit compat mode. m68k has similar
> issues with 16/32 bit integers, but those don't apply here.
> 
>> If some (perhaps non-gcc) compiler were to lay this out differently
>> (perhaps with suitable command-line options) then that's liveable
>> with - as long as the kernel never changes the layout.  Of course
>> it would be better to avoid this if poss.
> 
> If a compiler was using irregular structure alignment, all sorts of
> library interfaces would break. The kernel ABI is only a small part
> of the problem then.
> 
>> The other potential issue with a structure like this is that there's a
>> risk that it will lead us to copy four bytes of uninitialised kernel
>> memory out to userspace.
>>
>> IOW, it seems a generally bad idea to rely upon compiler-added padding
>> for this sort of thing.
> 
> Agreed in general, but the whole point of this particular patch was to
> provide compatibility with an interface that has been part of XFS for
> many years.
> Linux already has a better interface for new users (sys_fallocate), so
> changing the patch would not be helpful and not provide any advantage.
> 
> There is also no leak of uninitialized data here, because this structure
> is only read, never written.
> 
> 	Arnd <><
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +struct space_resv {
> +	__s16		l_type;
> +	__s16		l_whence;
> +	__s64		l_start;
> +	__s64		l_len;		/* len == 0 means until end of file */
> +	__s32		l_sysid;
> +	__u32		l_pid;
> +	__s32		l_pad[4];	/* reserve area			    */
> +};

What about telling the compiler exactly what you said above, just
to be sure we all mean the same thing. (And as documentation for new
comers):

+struct space_resv_64 {
+	__s16		l_type;
+	__s16		l_whence;
+	__u32		reserved;
+	__s64		l_start;
+	__s64		l_len;		/* len == 0 means until end of file */
+	__s32		l_sysid;
+	__u32		l_pid;
+	__s32		l_pad[4];	/* reserve area			    */
+} __packed;

And define another one for x86_32

Boaz

  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-01  9:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-28 20:59 [PATCH] fs: Add new pre-allocation ioctls to vfs for compatibility with legacy xfs ioctls Ankit Jain
2009-01-28 20:59 ` Ankit Jain
2009-01-28 20:59 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Ankit Jain
2009-01-31  0:22 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-31  0:23   ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andrew Morton
2009-01-31  0:22   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-31  0:38   ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-01-31  0:39     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Arnd Bergmann
2009-01-31  0:38     ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-01-31  1:14     ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-31  1:14       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Andrew Morton
2009-01-31  1:14       ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-31  1:48       ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-01-31  1:49         ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Arnd Bergmann
2009-01-31  1:48         ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-01-31  1:48         ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-02-01  9:48         ` Boaz Harrosh [this message]
2009-02-01  9:48           ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01  9:48           ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 10:05           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-01 10:05             ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-01 10:05             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-01 10:39             ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 10:39               ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 10:39               ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 10:59               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-01 11:00                 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-01 10:59                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-01 12:32                 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 12:33                   ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 12:32                   ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 15:37                   ` [xfs-masters] " Eric Sandeen
2009-02-01 15:41                     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Eric Sandeen
2009-02-01 15:37                     ` Eric Sandeen
2009-02-01 16:25                     ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 16:26                       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 16:25                       ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 16:35                       ` Eric Sandeen
2009-02-01 16:36                         ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Eric Sandeen
2009-02-01 16:35                         ` Eric Sandeen
2009-02-01 16:41                         ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-01 16:45                           ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-01 16:41                           ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-01 16:57                           ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 16:58                             ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-01 16:57                             ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02  0:31                             ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-02-02  0:32                               ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Arnd Bergmann
2009-02-02  0:31                               ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-02-02  8:29                               ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02  8:30                                 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02  8:29                                 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02  8:45                                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-02  8:45                                   ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-02  8:45                                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-02-02  9:33                                   ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02  9:34                                     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02  9:33                                     ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-02 20:51                                     ` Jamie Lokier
2009-02-02 20:53                                       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jamie Lokier
2009-02-02 20:51                                       ` Jamie Lokier
2009-02-03  7:31                                       ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-03  7:32                                         ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-03  7:31                                         ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-02-03 11:21                                         ` Jamie Lokier
2009-02-03 11:21                                           ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Jamie Lokier
2009-02-03 11:21                                           ` Jamie Lokier
2009-06-19 18:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-19 18:28   ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-19 18:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-20  8:13   ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-06-23 22:05     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Arnd Bergmann
2009-06-20  8:13     ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-06-21 18:41     ` [xfs-masters] " Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-21 18:46       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-21 18:41       ` Christoph Hellwig

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=49856FE6.8020601@panasas.com \
    --to=bharrosh@panasas.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=joel.becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=me@ankitjain.org \
    --cc=mfasheh@suse.com \
    --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.