On 1/28/19 5:47 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:57 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> [please make sure linux-api and linux-man are CCed on new syscalls
>> so that we get API experts to review them]
>
>>> +static int io_import_iovec(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, int rw,
>>> + const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
>>> + struct iovec **iovec, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>> +{
>>> + void __user *buf = u64_to_user_ptr(sqe->addr);
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>> + if (ctx->compat)
>>> + return compat_import_iovec(rw, buf, sqe->len, UIO_FASTIOV,
>>> + iovec, iter);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I think we can just check in_compat_syscall() here, which means we
>> can kill the ->compat member, and the separate compat version of the
>> setup syscall.
>>
>
> Since this whole API is new, I don't suppose you could introduce a
> struct iovec64 or similar and just make the ABI be identical for
> 64-bit and 32-bit code?
Sure, that would be straight forward. Is there a strong reason to do
so outside of "that would be nice"? It's not like it's a huge amount
of code.
--
Jens Axboe
