Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] compat_ioctl: move more drivers to generic_compat_ioctl_ptrarg

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:18:52PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 10:51:08AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 09:57:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 01:35:06PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Darren Hart (VMware) <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > As for a longer term solution, would it be possible to init fops in such
> > > > > a way that the compat_ioctl call defaults to generic_compat_ioctl_ptrarg
> > > > > so we don't have to duplicate this boilerplate for every ioctl fops
> > > > > structure?
> > > >
> > > >     Bad idea, that...  Because several years down the road somebody will add
> > > > an ioctl that takes an unsigned int for argument.  Without so much as looking
> > > > at your magical mystery macro being used to initialize file_operations.
> > >
> > > Fair, being explicit in the declaration as it is currently may be
> > > preferable then.
> >
> > It would be much cleaner and safer if you could arrange things to add
> > something like this to struct file_operations:
> >
> >   long (*ptr_ioctl) (struct file *, unsigned int, void __user *);
> >
> > Where the core code automatically converts the unsigned long to the
> > void __user * as appropriate.
> >
> > Then it just works right always and the compiler will help address
> > Al's concern down the road.
> 
> I think if we wanted to do this with a new file operation, the best
> way would be to do the copy_from_user()/copy_to_user() in the caller
> as well.
>
> We already do this inside of some subsystems, notably drivers/media/,
> and it simplifies the implementation of the ioctl handler function
> significantly. We obviously cannot do this in general, both because of
> traditional drivers that have 16-bit command codes (drivers/tty and others)
> and also because of drivers that by accident defined the commands
> incorrectly and use the wrong type or the wrong direction in the
> definition.

That could work well, but the first idea could be done globally and
mechanically, while this would require very careful per-driver
investigation. 

Particularly if the core code has worse performance.. ie due to
kmalloc calls or something.

I think it would make more sense to start by having the core do the
case to __user and then add another entry point to have the core do
the copy_from_user, and so on.

Jason