On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 04:23:58PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Yuck. FUSE assumes an interface contract (the data size encoded in the ioctl > number) that neither userspace nor kernel actually abide. This has gone on for > years with no problems, since both components made the same implicit assumption > about data size in the same way. Unfortunately, userspace breaks only on FUSE, > so I don't know what to do. I suspect we've never noticed because traditionally, FUSE has never been used to front-end a file system that supports chattr/lsattr --- most of thsoe file systems are available as native Linux file systems, so it's probably not a common use case for FUSE. Can we make the FUSE ioctl handler in fs/fuse/ioctl.c special case handle the EXT2_IOC_[SG]ETFLAG ioctls. That would it be consistent with the other file systms. > Long term I guess we could define a new pair of ioctls that work with pointers > to 64-bit values and deprecate the old ones. Or perhaps there's a better > suggestion than "don't run chattr/lsattr on a FUSE"? Well we can create a new pair of ioctls, and then have the userspace code try the new ioctl, and if the kernel doesn't support it, try the new ioctl. But then we would have to fix up all of the file systems in Linux, and it would take a while before users have a new kernel and a new userspace which supports the new ioctl. If we put the hack in fs/fuse/file.c's ioctl handler, then it only requires a kernel upgrade.... - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
