From: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: [PATCH] doc: ioctl: Add some clarifications to botching-up-ioctls
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:42:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1472856144-4659-1-git-send-email-labbott@redhat.com> (raw)
- The guide currently says to pad the structure to a multiple of
64-bits. This is not necessary in cases where the structure contains
no 64-bit types. Clarify this concept to avoid unnecessary padding.
- When using __u64 to hold user pointers, blindly trying to do a cast to
a void __user * may generate a warning on 32-bit systems about a cast
from an integer to a pointer of different size. There is a macro to
deal with this which hides an ugly double cast. Add a reference to
this macro.
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
---
I can split these into two separate patches if necessary but it seemed simpler
just to colapse them into a single patch.
---
Documentation/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.txt | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.txt b/Documentation/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.txt
index cc30b14..36138c6 100644
--- a/Documentation/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.txt
+++ b/Documentation/ioctl/botching-up-ioctls.txt
@@ -34,15 +34,18 @@ will need to add a a 32-bit compat layer:
64-bit platforms do. So we always need padding to the natural size to get
this right.
- * Pad the entire struct to a multiple of 64-bits - the structure size will
- otherwise differ on 32-bit versus 64-bit. Having a different structure size
- hurts when passing arrays of structures to the kernel, or if the kernel
- checks the structure size, which e.g. the drm core does.
+ * Pad the entire struct to a multiple of 64-bits if the structure contains
+ 64-bit types - the structure size will otherwise differ on 32-bit versus
+ 64-bit. Having a different structure size hurts when passing arrays of
+ structures to the kernel, or if the kernel checks the structure size, which
+ e.g. the drm core does.
* Pointers are __u64, cast from/to a uintprt_t on the userspace side and
from/to a void __user * in the kernel. Try really hard not to delay this
conversion or worse, fiddle the raw __u64 through your code since that
- diminishes the checking tools like sparse can provide.
+ diminishes the checking tools like sparse can provide. The macro
+ u64_to_user_ptr can be used in the kernel to avoid warnings about integers
+ and pointres of different sizes.
Basics
--
2.7.4
next reply other threads:[~2016-09-02 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-02 22:42 Laura Abbott [this message]
2016-09-02 22:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-06 12:00 ` Jonathan Corbet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1472856144-4659-1-git-send-email-labbott@redhat.com \
--to=labbott@redhat.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome