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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 71925C388F7 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A19C2075A for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:05:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1604621154; bh=GopOboKX48Vi0577YtxhvXzwzmNNcbiW/DXzmt2YRyw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=p+DxLYknHRB06vG9/vddDvoDcT7iPcApOr00MK5wxIqrsah/kYAWJxNyXUYZXZ9/u qEj7NcIaZc8WC3V/mrF2dmuIBNJ28XGc41z0QAkTgiUgVkmb0rOqWBDw1R2eG7Pq1u 16T4q1Tf0C2AIH6t1Hx1JXEccDMY8FOqJI9UfMfY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732656AbgKFAFw (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:05:52 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53396 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729162AbgKFAFw (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:05:52 -0500 Received: from gmail.com (unknown [104.132.1.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB85420759; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 00:05:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1604621152; bh=GopOboKX48Vi0577YtxhvXzwzmNNcbiW/DXzmt2YRyw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YJUAgFFxsomGeKRDsqkPvTl10ieWoHnI53gAbkmNITqavukLvtAaBYdFJS4gCo93T KbphgajLNbDle8mGVn8KSnV/z2VtoaPcr2R0ho+k+amGkhhmiwJeCcqGcYvHFPkW8/ +RljiNOBxc5452dh/5GaT8hff7sS0F2L87LEe7jw= Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:05:50 -0800 From: Eric Biggers To: Chao Yu Cc: jaegeuk@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] f2fs: fix compat F2FS_IOC_{MOVE, GARBAGE_COLLECT}_RANGE Message-ID: <20201106000550.GD2555324@gmail.com> References: <20201105010934.16018-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201105010934.16018-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This patch is marked 2/2, but it seems you sent it out on its own. Patch series are supposed to be resend in full; otherwise people can see just one patch and have no context. On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:09:34AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Eric reported a ioctl bug in below link: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20201103032234.GB2875@sol.localdomain/ > > That said, on some 32-bit architectures, u64 has only 32-bit alignment, > notably i386 and x86_32, so that size of struct f2fs_gc_range compiled > in x86_32 is 20 bytes, however the size in x86_64 is 24 bytes, binary > compiled in x86_32 can not call F2FS_IOC_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE successfully > due to mismatched value of ioctl command in between binary and f2fs > module, similarly, F2FS_IOC_MOVE_RANGE will fail too. > > In this patch we introduce two ioctls for compatibility of above special > 32-bit binary: > - F2FS_IOC32_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE > - F2FS_IOC32_MOVE_RANGE > It would be good to add a proper reported-by line, otherwise it's not clear who "Eric" is (there are lots of Erics): Reported-by: Eric Biggers > +static int __f2fs_ioc_gc_range(struct file *filp, struct f2fs_gc_range *range) > { > - struct inode *inode = file_inode(filp); > - struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode); > - struct f2fs_gc_range range; > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(file_inode(filp)); > u64 end; > int ret; > > + if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) > + return -EIO; > + if (!f2fs_is_checkpoint_ready(sbi)) > + return -ENOSPC; These two checkpoint-related checks weren't present in the original version. Is that intentional? > +static int __f2fs_ioc_move_range(struct file *filp, > + struct f2fs_move_range *range) > { > - struct f2fs_move_range range; > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(file_inode(filp)); > struct fd dst; > int err; > > + if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) > + return -EIO; > + if (!f2fs_is_checkpoint_ready(sbi)) > + return -ENOSPC; > + Likewise here. > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h b/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h > index f00199a2e38b..8c14e88a9645 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/f2fs.h > @@ -5,6 +5,10 @@ > #include > #include > > +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > +#include > +#endif > + > /* > * f2fs-specific ioctl commands > */ > @@ -65,6 +69,16 @@ struct f2fs_gc_range { > __u64 len; > }; > > +#if defined(__KERNEL__) && defined(CONFIG_COMPAT) > +struct compat_f2fs_gc_range { > + u32 sync; > + compat_u64 start; > + compat_u64 len; > +}; > +#define F2FS_IOC32_GARBAGE_COLLECT_RANGE _IOW(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 11,\ > + struct compat_f2fs_gc_range) > +#endif > + > struct f2fs_defragment { > __u64 start; > __u64 len; > @@ -77,6 +91,17 @@ struct f2fs_move_range { > __u64 len; /* size to move */ > }; > > +#if defined(__KERNEL__) && defined(CONFIG_COMPAT) > +struct compat_f2fs_move_range { > + u32 dst_fd; > + compat_u64 pos_in; > + compat_u64 pos_out; > + compat_u64 len; > +}; > +#define F2FS_IOC32_MOVE_RANGE _IOWR(F2FS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 9, \ > + struct compat_f2fs_move_range) > +#endif > + > struct f2fs_flush_device { > __u32 dev_num; /* device number to flush */ > __u32 segments; /* # of segments to flush */ > -- Did you consider instead putting these compat definitions in an internal kernel header, or even just in the .c file, to avoid cluttering up the UAPI header? - Eric