On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 05:25:23PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2020/11/7 2:03, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:53:31PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > > > +#if defined(__KERNEL__) > > > +struct compat_f2fs_gc_range { > > > + u32 sync; > > > + compat_u64 start; > > > + compat_u64 len; > > > +}; > > > > There's no need to use '#if defined(__KERNEL__)' in kernel source files. > > > > Likewise for compat_f2fs_move_range. > > Correct. > > > > > > +static int f2fs_compat_ioc_gc_range(struct file *file, unsigned long arg) > > > +{ > > > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(file_inode(file)); > > > + struct compat_f2fs_gc_range __user *urange; > > > + struct f2fs_gc_range range; > > > + int err; > > > + > > > + if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) > > > + return -EIO; > > > + if (!f2fs_is_checkpoint_ready(sbi)) > > > + return -ENOSPC; > > > > I still don't understand why this checkpoint-related stuff is getting added > > here, and only to the compat versions of the ioctls. It wasn't in the > > original > > version. If they are needed then they should be added to > > __f2fs_ioc_gc_range() > > and __f2fs_ioc_move_range() (preferably by a separate patch) so that they > > are > > If so, cp-related stuff will be checked redundantly in both f2fs_ioctl() and > __f2fs_ioc_xxx() function for native GC_RANGE and MOVE_RANGE ioctls, it's > not needed. >
Oh I see, the cp-related checks are at the beginning of f2fs_ioctl() too. In that case a much better approach would be to add __f2fs_ioctl() which is called by f2fs_ioctl() and f2fs_compat_ioctl(), and have f2fs_ioctl() and f2fs_compat_ioctl() do the cp-related checks but not __f2fs_ioctl(). I feel that's still not entirely correct, because ENOTTY should take precedence over EIO or ENOSPC from the cp-related stuff. But at least it would be consistent between the native and compat ioctls, and the cp-related checks wouldn't have to be duplicated in random ioctls... - Eric