topic Freescale Cryptodev incorrect definition in T-Series https://community.nxp.com/t5/T-Series/Freescale-Cryptodev-incorrect-definition/m-p/457524#M414 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Freescale has added a patch to cryptodev to support compat_ioctl.&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem is, freescale's defintion of COMPAT_CIOCKEY differs from the standard defintion of CIOCKEY, as you can see below:</P><P></P><PRE __default_attr="c++" __jive_macro_name="code" class="_jivemacro_uid_14425003789398047 jive_macro_code jive_text_macro" data-renderedposition="71_8_1232_16" jivemacro_uid="_14425003789398047"><P>#define COMPAT_CIOCKEY _IOW('c', 105, struct compat_crypt_kop)</P></PRE><PRE __default_attr="c++" __jive_macro_name="code" class="jive_macro_code jive_text_macro _jivemacro_uid_14425004249883312" data-renderedposition="87_8_1232_16" jivemacro_uid="_14425004249883312" modifiedtitle="true"><P>#<SPAN class="pl-k">define</SPAN> <SPAN class="pl-en">CIOCKEY</SPAN>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <SPAN class="pl-en">_IOWR</SPAN>(<SPAN class="pl-s"><SPAN class="pl-pds">'</SPAN>c<SPAN class="pl-pds">'</SPAN></SPAN>, <SPAN class="pl-c1">105</SPAN>, <SPAN class="pl-k">struct</SPAN> crypt_kop)</P></PRE><P></P><P>This causes issues when a CIOCKEY ioctl call is made, but it is passed to the compat_ioctl handler.&nbsp;&nbsp; All other compat_* definitions are the same as their regular definitions.&nbsp; Is there a reason Freescale has made the COMPAT_CIOCKEY different?</P><P></P><P>Thanks</P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:39:37 GMT ianmerin 2015-09-17T14:39:37Z Freescale Cryptodev incorrect definition https://community.nxp.com/t5/T-Series/Freescale-Cryptodev-incorrect-definition/m-p/457524#M414 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Freescale has added a patch to cryptodev to support compat_ioctl.&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem is, freescale's defintion of COMPAT_CIOCKEY differs from the standard defintion of CIOCKEY, as you can see below:</P><P></P><PRE __default_attr="c++" __jive_macro_name="code" class="_jivemacro_uid_14425003789398047 jive_macro_code jive_text_macro" data-renderedposition="71_8_1232_16" jivemacro_uid="_14425003789398047"><P>#define COMPAT_CIOCKEY _IOW('c', 105, struct compat_crypt_kop)</P></PRE><PRE __default_attr="c++" __jive_macro_name="code" class="jive_macro_code jive_text_macro _jivemacro_uid_14425004249883312" data-renderedposition="87_8_1232_16" jivemacro_uid="_14425004249883312" modifiedtitle="true"><P>#<SPAN class="pl-k">define</SPAN> <SPAN class="pl-en">CIOCKEY</SPAN>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <SPAN class="pl-en">_IOWR</SPAN>(<SPAN class="pl-s"><SPAN class="pl-pds">'</SPAN>c<SPAN class="pl-pds">'</SPAN></SPAN>, <SPAN class="pl-c1">105</SPAN>, <SPAN class="pl-k">struct</SPAN> crypt_kop)</P></PRE><P></P><P>This causes issues when a CIOCKEY ioctl call is made, but it is passed to the compat_ioctl handler.&nbsp;&nbsp; All other compat_* definitions are the same as their regular definitions.&nbsp; Is there a reason Freescale has made the COMPAT_CIOCKEY different?</P><P></P><P>Thanks</P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:39:37 GMT https://community.nxp.com/t5/T-Series/Freescale-Cryptodev-incorrect-definition/m-p/457524#M414 ianmerin 2015-09-17T14:39:37Z