On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 18:07 +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> > I haven't dug too deeply in yet, but if there are parts you're most
> > interested in comments on, please let me know.
>
> Well, I feel that the following two matters are particularlly
> questionable and need to be checked:
>
> - ioctl:
> Ioctl interface (routines and structures) were implemented in an
> own way. These seems to be checked whether to comply with the rules
> of ioctl design.
>
It took me far too long to look at this, I'm sorry. But, looking
through the ioctl code I think you'll have a few (easy to fix) problems.
struct nilfs_argv {
void *v_base;
size_t v_nmembs; /* number of members */
size_t v_size; /* size of members */
int v_index;
int v_flags;
};
The structs that get passed from userland to kernel should use fixed
sized types.
I get around this by using u64s (and __u64s) everywhere. It looks like
you have compat ioctls to fix this too, I find it easier to use the
fixed types.
Otherwise the ioctl code looks pretty reasonable.
-chris
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
