From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.de>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Introduce compile time structure size check
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:46:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180713144638.GY3126@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f2369c6-c882-7ae6-04f5-6de98bf10f58@suse.de>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:36:42PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年07月13日 22:34, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:19:07PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Introduce a new macro based compile time check for ioctl structures.
> >>
> >> The new macro is BTRFS_ASSERT_SIZE(), which is mostly copied from
> >> VMMDEV_ASSERT_SIZE().
> >
> > The macro should be generic, there's nothing specific to btrfs. There's
> > a similar one in the progs.
> >
> >> Such check is only added to structure pended to power of 2.
> >
> > There's no constraint about power of 2 sizes, it works for any size.
>
> While some structure doesn't do padding at all, and it looks like they
> may get expanded later.
> Do we really need to limit the size right now?
The size of an ioctl structure is part of kernel<->userspace API and
must not change once public. The ioctl number is calculated using the
structure size.
> >> And exposed one structure, btrfs_ioctl_get_dev_stats() is not aligned
> >> well.
> >> The misalign is introduced by commit b27f7c0c150f ("btrfs: join DEV_STATS
> >> ioctls to one").
> >
> > Yeah, that was an oversight, so the correct value to check against is
> > 1024 + 8 = 1032, see ioctl.h in progs.
>
> Can't we just revert to 1024?
Answered by the above, we absolutely cannot change the numbers now.
> That plus 8 doesn't really look well, and shrink the size shouldn't
> bring any problem AFAIK.
See
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/uapi/asm-generic/ioctl.h#L88
for _IOWR definition,
btrfs-progs:ioctl.h
817 #define BTRFS_IOC_GET_DEV_STATS _IOWR(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 52, \
818 struct btrfs_ioctl_get_dev_stats)
kernel:fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
5914 case BTRFS_IOC_GET_DEV_STATS:
5915 return btrfs_ioctl_get_dev_stats(fs_info, argp);
The values must match, otherwise dev stats will randomly break on
old/new kernel and progs combinations.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-13 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-12 6:19 [PATCH] btrfs: Introduce compile time structure size check Qu Wenruo
2018-07-12 6:27 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-12 6:56 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-13 14:34 ` David Sterba
2018-07-13 14:34 ` David Sterba
2018-07-13 14:36 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-13 14:46 ` David Sterba [this message]
2018-07-13 14:57 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-07-13 15:25 ` David Sterba
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=20180713144638.GY3126@twin.jikos.cz \
--to=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
--cc=wqu@suse.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox