[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Correct parameter size for BLKSSZGET ioctl.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o <> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:29:26PM -0400, Jason Cipriani wrote:
> > In blkdiscard in util-linux, at least since version 2.23, the
> > following code is used to retrieve a device's physical sector size:
> >
> > uint64_t secsize;
> > ioctl(fd, BLKSSZGET, &secsize);
> >
> > On my machine (Ubuntu 12.04 -- 3.2.0-55-generic-pae #85-Ubuntu SMP Wed
> > Oct 2 14:03:15 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux) this yields
> > incorrect results as it seems a 32-bit int is expected, this causes
> > subsequent sector alignment calculations in blkdiscard to be
> > incorrect, which in turn causes blkdiscards trim ioctl's to fail in
> > certain situations (or even worse, to trim the wrong blocks).
> BLKSSZGET returns an int. If you look at the sources of util-linux
> v2.23, you'll see it passes an int to BLKSSZGET in
> sys-utils/blkdiscard.c
> lib/blkdev.c
> E2fsprogs also expects BLKSSZGET to return an int, and if you look at
> the kernel sources, it very clearly returns an int.
> The one place it doesn't is in sys-utils/blkdiscard.c, where as you
> have noted, it is passing in a uint64 to BLKSSZGET. This looks like
> it's a bug in sys-util/blkdiscard.c.
> I'll send a proposed patch in the next e-mail message.

Thank you for submitting that patch.

There was a bigger question hidden behind the context there that I'm
still wondering about: Are these ioctl interfaces specified and
documented somewhere? From what I've seen, and from your response, the
implication is that the kernel source *is* the specification, and not
document exists that the kernel is expected to comply with; is this
the case?

Secondly, would it not make sense to change all ints in all public
kernel interfaces to data types with a well-defined, machine- and
(mostly) compiler-independent size, e.g. int32_t (or whatever)? On one
hand, nothing seems particularly broken, per se, but on the other,
"int" is vaguely defined and it is arguably only by chance (albeit a
strong chance) that everything works (e.g. compilers used to build
applications agree with compilers used to build the kernel).

Please CC me on replies, I am not subscribed to this list.

Thanks again,

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-03 20:41    [W:0.072 / U:3.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site