Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl

From	Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl
Date	2015-10-29 21:10 +0100
Message-ID	<qp1Gi-4Oq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<ppIDM-6NW-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qoWGB-1rT-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qp1dg-4pe-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:36:35 PM Thomas Rohwer wrote:
> > I suggest to add an anonymous union and add a u64 member that would
> > force the type width:
> > 
> > struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args {
> > 
> >          __s64 send_fd;                  /* in */
> >          __u64 clone_sources_count;      /* in */
> > 	
> > 	union {
> > 	
> > 		__u64 __user *clone_sources;    /* in */
> > 		u64 __pointer_alignment;
> > 	
> > 	};
> > 	
> >          __u64 parent_root;              /* in */
> >          __u64 flags;                    /* in */
> >          __u64 reserved[4];              /* in */
> > 
> > };
> 
> I am no expert, but would this change alone modify the user space ABI of a
> 32-bit Linux kernel? I.e. people in the (presumably currently working)
> btrfs-send situation (32-bit) user space/32-bit kernel would have to
> upgrade user space tools and kernel at the same time. Otherwise, they will
> encounter a non-working setup.

Yes, it would, but this appears to already be the case for btrfs-progs in 
general.

> I think, my suggested patch does not change any working ABI, and no change
> to the user space tools are necessary.

Don't the user space tools need to call a different ioctl?

Luke
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> - 2015-10-29 09:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION}  in btrfs_ioctl Thomas Rohwer <tr@ohwer.de> - 2015-10-29 13:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle  FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> - 2015-10-29 16:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle  FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> - 2015-10-29 15:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> - 2015-10-29 20:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION}  in btrfs_ioctl Thomas Rohwer <tr@ohwer.de> - 2015-10-29 20:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] btrfs: bugfix: handle FS_IOC32_{GETFLAGS,SETFLAGS,GETVERSION} in btrfs_ioctl Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> - 2015-10-29 21:10 +0100

csiph-web