Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:43:10 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible? | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:34:55 +0100
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:28:10PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >> Well this was what I was trying to gather, so maybe I just need to write >> something up to state that compat_ioctl is always required for new ioctls >> that pass pointers or 64-bit values hiding pointers, so more people >> don't make this mistake going forward. I can say when we inquired about this >> 2 or so years ago when designing kms I didn't get this answer, which is a pity. > > Right now you could probably ignore it (if you document it), since > there are no non s390 architectures with this problem, just > prepare mentally that you might need to revisit this at some point.
You can't ignore it on sparc64, it already OOPS's, and I refuse to live with that "if (is_compat_task())" masking hack, no way.
We designed portable interfaces for doing this stuff, please use it.
| |