On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, at 08:36, Asahi Lina wrote:
> Add simple 1:1 wrappers of the C ioctl number manipulation functions.
> Since these are macros we cannot bindgen them directly, and since they
> should be usable in const context we cannot use helper wrappers, so
> we'll have to reimplement them in Rust. Thankfully, the C headers do
> declare defines for the relevant bitfield positions, so we don't need
> to duplicate that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <lina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I don't know much rust yet, but it looks like a correct abstraction
that handles all the corner cases of architectures with unusual
_IOC_*MASK combinations the same way as the C version.
There is one corner case I'm not sure about:
> +/// Build an ioctl number, analogous to the C macro of the same name.
> +const fn _IOC(dir: u32, ty: u32, nr: u32, size: usize) -> u32 {
> + core::assert!(dir <= bindings::_IOC_DIRMASK);
> + core::assert!(ty <= bindings::_IOC_TYPEMASK);
> + core::assert!(nr <= bindings::_IOC_NRMASK);
> + core::assert!(size <= (bindings::_IOC_SIZEMASK as usize));
> +
> + (dir << bindings::_IOC_DIRSHIFT)
> + | (ty << bindings::_IOC_TYPESHIFT)
> + | (nr << bindings::_IOC_NRSHIFT)
> + | ((size as u32) << bindings::_IOC_SIZESHIFT)
> +}
This has the assertions inside of _IOC() while the C version
has them in the outer _IOR()/_IOW() /_IOWR() helpers. This was
intentional since some users of _IOC() pass a variable
length in rather than sizeof(type), and this would cause
a link failure in C.
How is the _IOC_SIZEMASK assertion evaluated here? It's
probably ok if this is a compile-time assertion that prevents
the variable-length arguments, but it would be bad if this
could lead to a BUG() or panic() in case of a user-supplied
length that is out of range.
Arnd
