On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 9:02 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I think reusing LO_FLAGS_DIRECT_IO makes sense to me - we have 32
> flags in the existing flags field (at least for loop_info64), so
> we might as well use the field and the flags. Then we need flags
> validation in that we don't accept new flags through the old
> interface, and the new one validates that no unknown flags are passed.
>
> E.g. in the LOOP_SET_STATUS / LOOP_SET_STATUS64 handler do:
>
> lo->lo_flags &= ~(LO_LEGACY_FLAGS);
>
mmm, I thought lo_flags was read-only in LOOP_SET_STATUS(64):
__u32 lo_flags; /* ioctl r/o */
but it looks LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR is writable:
if ((lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR) !=
(info->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR))
lo->lo_flags ^= LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR;
and it allows requesting a partition scan. It makes sense to maintain
that behavior, but what about LO_FLAGS_DIRECT_IO? I think you're
proposing LOOP_SET_STATUS(64) should keep ignoring that like it used
to?
Thanks,
Martijn
> and then in the main function reject anything not known.
>
> And then maybe add something like 64 bytes of padding to the end of the
> new structure, so that we can use flags to expand to it.
