On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:34:09AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2007, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > The underlying ABI is not changing, I hope - the trailing padding in the
> > struct should not affect the processing of the data by dm, and I see no
> > reason to continue maintaining the fiction that the 32-bit and 64-bit
> > ioctls are in some way incompatible with each other when they aren't
> > AFAIK.
>
> It's a corner case of some sort, as DM uses ioctl numbers differently
> from most subsystems by splitting to code from the size argument
> during processing. Your change is certainly not an _incompatible_
> change to the ABI, but 32 bit binaries compiled against the new
> headers will use different ioctl numbers from those built against
> older headers.
>
> This may break other code that expects a specific number, even
> if your handler does not care. The old compat code handles both
> variants (no variable size arguments), but /usr/bin/strace may have
> encoded only one set of numbers AFAICT.
>
> > And yes, a follow-up patch can clean up our use of the compatibility
> > mechanism, going a little bit further than the patch you attached, I
> > hope.
>
> Ok, sounds good. I don't think it's the kind of patch that should go
> into stable backports though.
Ok, I've not added this patch (2/25) to the queue at all. If this is
incorrect, please let me know.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
