Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:29:16 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, emulation@FreeBSD.ORG, audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linuxlator patches for review [was: Who currently maintains Linuxlator?] Message-ID: <20021009072916.GA81270@vega.vega.com> In-Reply-To: <20021009010309.GA607@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20021006110243.GA70993@vega.vega.com> <20021006183650.GY95327@elvis.mu.org> <3DA2BE32.BDEC28B5@FreeBSD.org> <20021009010309.GA607@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:03:09PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 02:14:58PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > See attached. As it was suggested, I'm also CC'ing marcel, > > freebsd-audit and freebsd-emulation. I'd like to hear any suggestion > > or comments. Please note that changes were not tested on alpha, > > because I don't have any axp hardware. > > I can test on Alpha, provided the patch is against -current. Do you > have some test cases? Unfortunately no, I don't have any test cases. However it should be OK to only check that the code actually compiles on alpha and existing apps still work fine. > > /* > > + * VFAT > > + */ > > +#define LINUX_VFAT_READDIR_BOTH 0x7201 > > + > > +#define LINUX_IOCTL_VFAT_MIN LINUX_VFAT_READDIR_BOTH > > +#define LINUX_IOCTL_VFAT_MAX LINUX_VFAT_READDIR_BOTH > > + > > +/* > > Silly question: The VFAT ioctl is not implemented. Is there a bigger > picture? > Also: is it worth having a VFAT handler if there's only 1 ioctl (again, > there might be a bigger picture)? I've added it just to avoid bogus "ioctl not implemented" kernel messages, which slows down a machine quite a bit. It should be OK, because VFAT ioctl doesn't make sense for UFS (on FreeBSD) or extfs (on Linux) anyway. > > > case LINUX_IPC_INFO: > > case LINUX_SEM_INFO: > > - error = copyin((caddr_t)args->arg.buf, &linux_seminfo, > > - sizeof(linux_seminfo) ); > > - if (error) > > - return error; > > bcopy(&seminfo, &linux_seminfo, sizeof(linux_seminfo) ); > > /* XXX BSD equivalent? > > #define used_semids 10 > > > Should the copyin be replaced with something or was the copyin bogus? > > Other than that: looks good. I merely skimmed over it, so I may have > missed a detail.... There is no point to do copyin(), because this particular system call doesn't use information from user supplied buffer, but fills this buffer with information instead. I've figured out this from reading Linux kernel sources. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021009072916.GA81270>