On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:58:40PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > From: Serban Constantinescu <[email protected]> > > This patch fixes the ABI for 64bit Android userspace. > BC_REQUEST_DEATH_NOTIFICATION and BC_CLEAR_DEATH_NOTIFICATION claim > to be using struct binder_ptr_cookie, but they are using a 32bit handle > and a pointer. > > On 32bit systems the payload size is the same as the size of struct > binder_ptr_cookie, however for 64bit systems this will differ. This > patch adds struct binder_handle_cookie that fixes this issue for 64bit > Android. > > Since there are no 64bit users of this interface that we know of this > change should not affect any existing systems.
But you are changing the ioctl structures here, what is that going to cause with old programs? > > Cc: Colin Cross <[email protected]> > Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <[email protected]> > Cc: Serban Constantinescu <[email protected]> > Cc: Android Kernel Team <[email protected]> I am going to require Acks from someone on the Android team to accept this, or any other 64bit binder patch, given all the back-and-forth that has happened with the different patch sets here over the past year or so. Until then, I can't take this (and I think this patch is still broken...) > Signed-off-by: Serban Constantinescu <[email protected]> > [jstultz: Minor commit tweaks, few 80+ col fixes for checkpatch] > Signed-off-by: John Stultz <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/staging/android/uapi/binder.h | 15 +++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/uapi/binder.h > b/drivers/staging/android/uapi/binder.h > index 2b1eb81..4071fcf 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/android/uapi/binder.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/uapi/binder.h > @@ -152,6 +152,11 @@ struct binder_ptr_cookie { > void *cookie; > }; > > +struct binder_handle_cookie { > + __u32 handle; > + void *cookie; > +} __attribute__((packed)); Are you sure this isn't supposed to be a union? > + > struct binder_pri_desc { > __s32 priority; > __u32 desc; > @@ -308,15 +313,17 @@ enum binder_driver_command_protocol { > * of looping threads it has available. > */ > > - BC_REQUEST_DEATH_NOTIFICATION = _IOW('c', 14, struct binder_ptr_cookie), > + BC_REQUEST_DEATH_NOTIFICATION = _IOW('c', 14, > + struct binder_handle_cookie), > /* > - * void *: ptr to binder > + * int: handle > * void *: cookie How does this not break existing user/kernel code if only one of them gets rebuilt with this new header file? You just changed the ABI here, not nice... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
