Re: Some nilfs comments

[Ryusuke Konishi <ryusuke-sG5X7nlA6pw@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:55:09 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 18:07 +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> > > I haven't dug too deeply in yet, but if there are parts you're most
> > > interested in comments on, please let me know.
> > 
> > Well, I feel that the following two matters are particularlly
> > questionable and need to be checked:
> > 
> 
> > - ioctl:
> >   Ioctl interface (routines and structures) were implemented in an
> >   own way.  These seems to be checked whether to comply with the rules
> >   of ioctl design.
> > 
> 
> It took me far too long to look at this, I'm sorry.  But, looking
> through the ioctl code I think you'll have a few (easy to fix) problems.
> 
> struct nilfs_argv {
>         void *v_base;
>         size_t v_nmembs;        /* number of members */
>         size_t v_size;          /* size of members */
>         int v_index;
>         int v_flags;
> };
> 
> The structs that get passed from userland to kernel should use fixed
> sized types.
> 
> I get around this by using u64s (and __u64s) everywhere.  It looks like
> you have compat ioctls to fix this too, I find it easier to use the
> fixed types.
> 
> Otherwise the ioctl code looks pretty reasonable.
> 
> -chris

Thank you for this comment and for taking time from your busy
schedule.

I think it actually should be fixed to comply with the kernel rules.
The same problem is found in a few other ioctl structures.

I'd like to modify them and remove compat ioctls some time soon.


Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi