lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Input: uinput - Add UI_SET_UNIQ ioctl handler
On Monday 02 December 2019 11:36:28 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 07:53:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 02 December 2019 09:54:40 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:47:50AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 01 December 2019 17:23:05 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > Hi Pali,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 03:53:57PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday 27 November 2019 10:51:39 Abhishek Pandit-Subedi wrote:
> > > > > > > Support setting the uniq attribute of the input device. The uniq
> > > > > > > attribute is used as a unique identifier for the connected device.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, uinput devices created by BlueZ will store the address of
> > > > > > > the connected device as the uniq property.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@chromium.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h b/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h
> > > > > > > index c9e677e3af1d..d5b7767c1b02 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h
> > > > > > > @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ struct uinput_abs_setup {
> > > > > > > #define UI_SET_PHYS _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 108, char*)
> > > > > > > #define UI_SET_SWBIT _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 109, int)
> > > > > > > #define UI_SET_PROPBIT _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 110, int)
> > > > > > > +#define UI_SET_UNIQ _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 111, char*)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that usage of char* as type in _IOW would cause compatibility
> > > > > > problems like it is for UI_SET_PHYS (there is UI_SET_PHYS_COMPAT). Size
> > > > > > of char* pointer depends on userspace (32 vs 64bit), so 32bit process on
> > > > > > 64bit kernel would not be able to call this new UI_SET_UNIQ ioctl.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would suggest to define this ioctl as e.g.:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define UI_SET_UNIQ _IOW(_IOC_WRITE, UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 111, 0)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And then in uinput.c code handle it as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > case UI_SET_UNIQ & ~IOCSIZE_MASK:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as part of section /* Now check variable-length commands */
> > > > >
> > > > > If we did not have UI_SET_PHYS in its current form, I'd agree with you,
> > > > > but I think there is benefit in having UI_SET_UNIQ be similar to
> > > > > UI_SET_PHYS.
> > > >
> > > > I thought that ioctl is just number, so we can define it as we want. And
> > > > because uinput.c has already switch for variable-length commands it
> > > > would be easy to use it. Final handling can be in separate function like
> > > > for UI_SET_PHYS which can look like same.
> > >
> > > Yes, we can define ioctl number as whatever we want. What I was trying
> > > to say, right now users do this:
> > >
> > > rc = ioctl(fd, UI_SET_PHYS, "whatever");
> > > ...
> > >
> > > and with UI_SET_UNIQ they expect the following to work:
> > >
> > > rc = ioctl(fd, UI_SET_UNIQ, "whatever");
> > > ...
> >
> > And would not following definition
> >
> > #define UI_SET_UNIQ _IOW(_IOC_WRITE, UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 111, 0)
> >
> > allow userspace to call
> >
> > rc = ioctl(fd, UI_SET_UNIQ, "whatever");
> >
> > as you want?
>
> OK, so what you are saying is that we can have whatever in the size
> portion of ioctl number and simply ignore it in the driver

Yes.

> (and I do not
> think we need to do any of "UI_SET_UNIQ & ~IOCSIZE_MASK" really).

You are right, we do not need to clear any IOCSIZE_MASK. As ioctl number
would be always sam constant number. So it would be really simple. So
original patch would work if UI_SET_UNIQ define would be changed to
above with _IOW() macro.

> While this would work, I am not sure it is the best option as I think
> we'd have to comment extensively why we have arbitrary number in place
> of the size.

Comment can be added. But this is as ioctl is going to accept variable
length array (not fixed array), zero value make sense for me (zero as we
do not know exact size).

> And we still do not really save anything, as we still have to go through
> compat ioctl handler (since we have it already) and it is very simple to
> add a case for UI_SET_UNIQ there...

Yes, compat ioctl is still used. But my proposed solution does not
involve to define a new compact ioctl number just for sizeof(char *).

I'm looking at this particular problem from side, that there is no
reason to define two new ioctl numbers for UI_SET_UNIQ (one normal
number and one compat number), when one number is enough. It is one new
ioctl call, so one ioctl number should be enough.

And also with my proposed solution with ioctl size=0 it simplify
implementation of UI_SET_UNIQ as it is not needed to implement also
UI_SET_UNIQ_COMPAT ioctl nor touch compat ioct code path. Basically
original patch (with changed UI_SET_UNIQ macro) is enough.

But of of course, this is my view of this problem and I would not be
against your decision from maintainer position. Both solutions would
work correctly and bring same behavior for userspace applications.

> Thanks.
>

--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-03 00:10    [W:0.075 / U:4.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site