14.09.2017 02:38, Ian Kent пишет:
> On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h | 3 +++
>> fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 3 +++
>> fs/autofs4/inode.c | 4 +++-
>> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h b/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>> index 4737615..3da105f 100644
>> --- a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ struct autofs_sb_info {
>> struct list_head active_list;
>> struct list_head expiring_list;
>> struct rcu_head rcu;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> + unsigned is32bit:1;
>> +#endif
>> };
>>
>> static inline struct autofs_sb_info *autofs4_sbi(struct super_block *sb)
>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>> index b7c816f..467d6c4 100644
>> --- a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>> @@ -397,6 +397,9 @@ static int autofs_dev_ioctl_setpipefd(struct file *fp,
>> sbi->pipefd = pipefd;
>> sbi->pipe = pipe;
>> sbi->catatonic = 0;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> + sbi->is32bit = is_compat_task();
>> +#endif
>> }
>> out:
>> put_pid(new_pid);
>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/inode.c b/fs/autofs4/inode.c
>> index 09e7d68..21d3c0b 100644
>> --- a/fs/autofs4/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/inode.c
>> @@ -301,7 +301,9 @@ int autofs4_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent)
>> } else {
>> sbi->oz_pgrp = get_task_pid(current, PIDTYPE_PGID);
>> }
>> -
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> + sbi->is32bit = is_compat_task();
>> +#endif
>> if (autofs_type_trigger(sbi->type))
>> __managed_dentry_set_managed(root);
>>
>>
>
> Not sure about this.
>
> Don't you think it would be better to avoid the in code #ifdefs by doing some
> checks and defines in the header file and defining what's need to just use
> is_compat_task().
>
Yes, might be...
> Not sure 2 patches are needed for this either ......
>
Well, I found this issue occasionally.
And, frankly speaking, it's not clear to me, whether this issue is important at all, so I wanted to clarify this first.
Thanks to O_DIRECT, the only way to catch the issue is to try to read more, than expected, in compat task (that's how I found it).
I don't see any other flaw so far. And if so, that, probably, we shouldn't care about the issue at all.
What do you think?
> Ian
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
