Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:32:26 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CFR][PATCH] drm2: don't assume that dev->driver->max_ioctl > *dev->driver->compat_ioctls_nr Message-ID: <20141128173226.GW17068@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <xmwjC4AQ874ym1oFCGAsPn1EJkI@1d%2BaJAniZP50FCDdGj54nd51%2Bks> References: <xmwjC4AQ874ym1oFCGAsPn1EJkI@1d%2BaJAniZP50FCDdGj54nd51%2Bks>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:29:42PM +0300, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Konstantin, *, good day. > > I noticed that the current ioctl processing code for drm2 implicitely > assumes that the number of native ioctls is higher than that of 32-bit > compat ones, so it immediately gives EINVAL when > nr >= dev->driver->max_ioctl. Seems that in future such assumption > may not be true in all cases. I very much doubt that it could become true. Compat32 ioctl cannot exist without its wider counterpart. > > This can be fixed with the following patch: > http://codelabs.ru/fbsd/patches/drm2/drm_drv-untangle-32bit-compat.diff > > Any thoughts on it? I think either current way or patch are fine, but why changing something which is fine ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141128173226.GW17068>