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
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
