On Sunday 01 December 2019 17:23:05 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Pali,
>
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 03:53:57PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > On Wednesday 27 November 2019 10:51:39 Abhishek Pandit-Subedi wrote:
> > > Support setting the uniq attribute of the input device. The uniq
> > > attribute is used as a unique identifier for the connected device.
> > >
> > > For example, uinput devices created by BlueZ will store the address of
> > > the connected device as the uniq property.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Abhishek Pandit-Subedi <abhishekpandit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h b/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h
> > > index c9e677e3af1d..d5b7767c1b02 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/uinput.h
> > > @@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ struct uinput_abs_setup {
> > > #define UI_SET_PHYS _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 108, char*)
> > > #define UI_SET_SWBIT _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 109, int)
> > > #define UI_SET_PROPBIT _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 110, int)
> > > +#define UI_SET_UNIQ _IOW(UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 111, char*)
> >
> > I think that usage of char* as type in _IOW would cause compatibility
> > problems like it is for UI_SET_PHYS (there is UI_SET_PHYS_COMPAT). Size
> > of char* pointer depends on userspace (32 vs 64bit), so 32bit process on
> > 64bit kernel would not be able to call this new UI_SET_UNIQ ioctl.
> >
> > I would suggest to define this ioctl as e.g.:
> >
> > #define UI_SET_UNIQ _IOW(_IOC_WRITE, UINPUT_IOCTL_BASE, 111, 0)
> >
> > And then in uinput.c code handle it as:
> >
> > case UI_SET_UNIQ & ~IOCSIZE_MASK:
> >
> > as part of section /* Now check variable-length commands */
>
> If we did not have UI_SET_PHYS in its current form, I'd agree with you,
> but I think there is benefit in having UI_SET_UNIQ be similar to
> UI_SET_PHYS.
I thought that ioctl is just number, so we can define it as we want. And
because uinput.c has already switch for variable-length commands it
would be easy to use it. Final handling can be in separate function like
for UI_SET_PHYS which can look like same.
> But you are absolutely correct that in current form the patch is
> deficient on 64/32 systems, and the compat handling needs to be added
> before it can be accepted.
Is not better to avoid usage of compat ioctl? Or it is OK to use compat
ioctl also for new features? I do not know if there are some kernel
rules for it or not... But for me it sounds like "compatibility layer
for older code".
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
