Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] fs: FS_IOC_GETUUID

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 05:37:22PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 09:01:05AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 03:18:51PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > +static int ioctl_getfsuuid(struct file *file, void __user *argp)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct super_block *sb = file_inode(file)->i_sb;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!sb->s_uuid_len)
> > > +		return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> > > +
> > > +	struct fsuuid2 u = { .len = sb->s_uuid_len, };
> > > +	memcpy(&u.uuid[0], &sb->s_uuid, sb->s_uuid_len);
> > > +
> > > +	return copy_to_user(argp, &u, sizeof(u)) ? -EFAULT : 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Can we please keep the declarations separate from the code? I always
> > find this sort of implicit scoping of variables both difficult to
> > read (especially in larger functions) and a landmine waiting to be
> > tripped over. This could easily just be:
> > 
> > static int ioctl_getfsuuid(struct file *file, void __user *argp)
> > {
> > 	struct super_block *sb = file_inode(file)->i_sb;
> > 	struct fsuuid2 u = { .len = sb->s_uuid_len, };
> > 
> > 	....
> > 
> > and then it's consistent with all the rest of the code...
> 
> The way I'm doing it here is actually what I'm transitioning my own code
> to - the big reason being that always declaring variables at the tops of
> functions leads to separating declaration and initialization, and worse
> it leads people to declaring a variable once and reusing it for multiple
> things (I've seen that be a source of real bugs too many times).
> 
> But I won't push that in this patch, we can just keep the style
> consistent for now.
> 
> > > +/* Returns the external filesystem UUID, the same one blkid returns */
> > > +#define FS_IOC_GETFSUUID		_IOR(0x12, 142, struct fsuuid2)
> > > +
> > 
> > Can you add a comment somewhere in the file saying that new VFS
> > ioctls should use the "0x12" namespace in the range 142-255, and
> > mention that BLK ioctls should be kept within the 0x12 {0-141}
> > range?
> 
> Well, if we're going to try to keep the BLK_ and FS_IOC_ ioctls in
> separate ranges, then FS_IOC_ needs to move to something else becasue
> otherwise BLK_ won't have a way to expand.

The BLK range can grow downwards towards zero, I think. It starts at
93 and goes to 136, so there's heaps of space for it to grow from 92
to 0....

> So what else -
> 
> ioctl-number.rst has a bunch of other ranges listed for fs.h, but 0x12
> appears to be the only one without conflicts - all the other ranges seem
> to have originated with other filesystems.

*nod*

> So perhaps I will take Darrick's nak (0x15) suggestion after all.

That works, too.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com