Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:34:22 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] quota: simplify the quotactl compat handling
Message-ID: <20200726163422.GA24657@lst.de>
References: <20200726160401.311569-1-hch@lst.de> <20200726160401.311569-5-hch@lst.de> <20200726163214.GS2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200726163214.GS2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 05:32:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > +static int compat_copy_fs_qfilestat(struct compat_fs_qfilestat __user *to,
> > +		struct fs_qfilestat *from)
> > +{
> > +	if (copy_to_user(to, from, sizeof(*to)) ||
> > +	    put_user(from->qfs_nextents, &to->qfs_nextents))
> > +		return -EFAULT;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> do we have any need of that put_user()?  Note that you don't even call
> that thing unless compat_need_64bit_alignment_fixup() is true.  And AFAICS
> all such cases are little-endian...

The main reason it is there is to preserve the previous semantics.
And no, I don't think we actually need it on x86.  But what if some
poor souls adds a BE version that needs this?  E.g. arm oabi has similar
weird alignment, and now imagine someone adding arm64 compat code for
that..