2024-04-30 03:28:33

by Youling Tang

Subject: [PATCH] bcachefs: Correct the FS_IOC_GETFLAGS to FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS in bch2_compat_fs_ioctl()

From: Youling Tang <[email protected]>

It should be FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS instead of FS_IOC_GETFLAGS in
compat ioctl.

Signed-off-by: Youling Tang <[email protected]>
---
fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
index 3dc8630ff9fe..205a323ffc6d 100644
--- a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
@@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ long bch2_compat_fs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
/* These are just misnamed, they actually get/put from/to user an int */
switch (cmd) {
- case FS_IOC_GETFLAGS:
+ case FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS:
cmd = FS_IOC_GETFLAGS;
break;
case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
--
2.34.1

2024-04-30 03:30:07

by Kent Overstreet

Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Correct the FS_IOC_GETFLAGS to FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS in bch2_compat_fs_ioctl()

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:27:44AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
> From: Youling Tang <[email protected]>
>
> It should be FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS instead of FS_IOC_GETFLAGS in
> compat ioctl.

Do we by chance have a test for this?

>
> Signed-off-by: Youling Tang <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
> index 3dc8630ff9fe..205a323ffc6d 100644
> --- a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
> @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ long bch2_compat_fs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
> {
> /* These are just misnamed, they actually get/put from/to user an int */
> switch (cmd) {
> - case FS_IOC_GETFLAGS:
> + case FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS:
> cmd = FS_IOC_GETFLAGS;
> break;
> case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
> --
> 2.34.1
>

2024-04-30 04:14:38

by Youling Tang

Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Correct the FS_IOC_GETFLAGS to FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS in bch2_compat_fs_ioctl()

On 30/04/2024 11:29, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:27:44AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
>> From: Youling Tang <[email protected]>
>>
>> It should be FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS instead of FS_IOC_GETFLAGS in
>> compat ioctl.
> Do we by chance have a test for this?

Just reading the code found this out.


>
>> Signed-off-by: Youling Tang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
>> index 3dc8630ff9fe..205a323ffc6d 100644
>> --- a/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
>> +++ b/fs/bcachefs/fs-ioctl.c
>> @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ long bch2_compat_fs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
>> {
>> /* These are just misnamed, they actually get/put from/to user an int */
>> switch (cmd) {
>> - case FS_IOC_GETFLAGS:
>> + case FS_IOC32_GETFLAGS:
>> cmd = FS_IOC_GETFLAGS;
>> break;
>> case FS_IOC32_SETFLAGS:
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>