> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:05:26PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:44:03AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon 2016-07-18 23:27:49, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > > The user space API is achieved via two synchronous IOCTL.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOCTLs?
> > > >
> > > > Will fix
> > > >
> > > > > > Simplified one, RPMB_IOC_REQ_CMD, were read result cycles is
> > > > > performed
> > > > > > by the framework on behalf the user and second,
> > > > > > RPMB_IOC_SEQ_CMD
> > > > > where
> > > > > > the whole RPMB sequence including RESULT_READ is supplied by
> > > > > > the
> > > caller.
> > > > > > The latter is intended for easier adjusting of the
> > > > > > applications that use MMC_IOC_MULTI_CMD ioctl.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why " "?
> > > > Not sure I there is enough clue in your question.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static long rpmb_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
> > > > > > +unsigned long arg) {
> > > > > > + return __rpmb_ioctl(fp, cmd, (void __user *)arg); }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > > > > > +static long rpmb_compat_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
> > > > > > + unsigned long arg)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + return __rpmb_ioctl(fp, cmd, compat_ptr(arg));
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT */
> > > > >
> > > > > Description of the ioctl is missing,
> > > > Will add.
> > > >
> > > > and it should certainly be designed in a way
> > > > > that it does not need compat support.
> > > >
> > > > The compat_ioctl handler just casts the compat_ptr, I believe this
> > > > should be done unless the ioctl is globaly registered in
> > > > fs/compat_ioctl.c, but I might be wrong.
> > >
> > > You shouldn't need a compat ioctl for anything new that is added,
> > > unless your api is really messed up. Please test to be sure, and
> > > not use a compat ioctl at all, it isn't that hard to do.
> >
> > compat_ioctl is called anyhow when CONFIG_COMPAT is set, there is no
> > way around it, or I'm missing something? Actually there is no more
> > than that for the COMPAT support in this code.
>
> If you don't provide a compat_ioctl() all should be fine, right?
No, this doesn't work the driver has to provide compat_ioctl
You would expect something like
if (!f.file->f_op->compat_ioctl) {
error = f_op->f.file->f_op->unlocked_ioctl((f.file, cmd, compat_ptr(arg))
}
But there is no such code under fs/compat_ioctl.c
The translation has to implemented by the device driver or registered directly in fs/compat_ioct.c in do_ioctl_trans or ioctl_pointer[]
If compat_ioct is not provided the application is receiving
: ioctl failure -1: Inappropriate ioctl for device
Thanks
Tomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
