On Tuesday 04 January 2011 06:40:32 Shaohua Li wrote:
> +static int ioctl_metadata_incore(struct file *filp, void __user *argp)
> +{
> + struct super_block *sb = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_sb;
> + struct metadata_incore_args args;
> + struct metadata_incore_ent ent;
> + loff_t offset, last_offset = 0;
> + ssize_t size, last_size = 0;
> + __u64 __user vec_addr;
__user only makes sense on pointers. Just make this a "struct
metadata_incore_ent __user *", which will also take care of the
"sparse" warnings you get from the copy_to_user lines below.
>
> +struct metadata_incore_ent {
> + __u64 offset;
> + __u32 size;
> + __u32 unused;
> +};
> +
> +struct metadata_incore_args {
> + __u64 offset; /* offset in meta address */
> + __u64 __user vec_addr; /* vector's address */
> + __u32 vec_size; /* vector's size */
> + __u32 unused;
> +};
We usually try hard to avoid ioctls with indirect pointers
in them. The implementation is correct (most people
get this wrong), besides the extraneous __user keyword in
there.
Have you tried passing just a single metadata_incore_ent
at the ioctl and looping in user space? I would guess the
extra overhead of that would be small enough, but that might
need to be measured.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
