lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fs: Add new pre-allocation ioctls to vfs for compatibility with legacy xfs ioctls
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 January 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> Is this written in a standard somewhere? Is it guaranteed?
> >
> > Alignment is defined in the architecture psABI documents.
> > Unfortunately, many of them were written before the 'long long'
> > type became part of the C standard, so it's not strictly guaranteed.
> > AFAICT, the alignment of __u64 on x86 is the same as the alignment
> > of 'double' by convention.
> >
> > However, the problem is well-understood: x86 is the only one
> > that has a problem in 32/64 bit compat mode. m68k has similar
> > issues with 16/32 bit integers, but those don't apply here.
> >
> >> If some (perhaps non-gcc) compiler were to lay this out differently
> >> (perhaps with suitable command-line options) then that's liveable
> >> with - as long as the kernel never changes the layout. Of course
> >> it would be better to avoid this if poss.
> >
> > If a compiler was using irregular structure alignment, all sorts of
> > library interfaces would break. The kernel ABI is only a small part
> > of the problem then.
> >
> >> The other potential issue with a structure like this is that there's a
> >> risk that it will lead us to copy four bytes of uninitialised kernel
> >> memory out to userspace.
> >>
> >> IOW, it seems a generally bad idea to rely upon compiler-added padding
> >> for this sort of thing.
> >
> > Agreed in general, but the whole point of this particular patch was to
> > provide compatibility with an interface that has been part of XFS for
> > many years.
> > Linux already has a better interface for new users (sys_fallocate), so
> > changing the patch would not be helpful and not provide any advantage.
> >
> > There is also no leak of uninitialized data here, because this structure
> > is only read, never written.
> >
> > Arnd <><
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +struct space_resv {
> > + __s16 l_type;
> > + __s16 l_whence;
> > + __s64 l_start;
> > + __s64 l_len; /* len == 0 means until end of file */
> > + __s32 l_sysid;
> > + __u32 l_pid;
> > + __s32 l_pad[4]; /* reserve area */
> > +};
>
> What about telling the compiler exactly what you said above, just
> to be sure we all mean the same thing. (And as documentation for new
> comers):
>
> +struct space_resv_64 {
> + __s16 l_type;
> + __s16 l_whence;
> + __u32 reserved;
> + __s64 l_start;
> + __s64 l_len; /* len == 0 means until end of file */
> + __s32 l_sysid;
> + __u32 l_pid;
> + __s32 l_pad[4]; /* reserve area */
> +} __packed;

Because the compiler will assume all fields are always unaligned and will use very
suboptimal code to access them?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-01 11:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans