From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:44293 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728971AbfAOP4C (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:56:02 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id e11so1467009plt.11 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:56:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 07:55:57 -0800 From: Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH xfstests] xfs: add tests to validate ioctl structure layout. Message-ID: <20190115155557.GA4482@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <20181214034053.23795-1-nbowler@draconx.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181214034053.23795-1-nbowler@draconx.ca> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Nick Bowler Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Brian Foster , Dave Chinner , "Darrick J. Wong" On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:40:53PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote: > Introduce two new test cases. The first one greps xfs_fs.h to find > any structure types possibly relevant to ioctls, then compares the > structure layouts between 64-bit and 32-bit objects. The goal is to > ensure that any _new_ structure has the same characteristics on 32-bit > versus 64-bit mode, ensuring a sane compat handler. This requires a > toolchain that can build both 64-bit and 32-bit objects, and hopefully > works on non-x86 platforms with compat woes. > > The whitelist was constructed by manually inspecting the current > compat ioctl implementation. The test validates that everything > in the whitelist actually got found by the grepping as a sort of > self-sanity check, but if older versions lacked some of these > types then this might need tweaking a bit. > > The second test validates that a well-known set of structures on x32 > crrectly match the ia32 or amd64 layouts as expected. This requires > a toolchain that can build for all three ABIs. > > The idea is that new additions to the header where the structures > differ in 32 and 64-bit x86 will be caught by the first test case > and that will be sufficient to detect potential x32 problems too. > > Signed-off-by: Nick Bowler I believe this effort was dropped. Respin? Luis