On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:12:42PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > So what this means is that on 32-bit systems, if we have a userspace
> > program which isn't using the Largefile-enabled, and it opens a file
> > which is larger than can be addressed with a 32-bit off_t,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:12:42PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> Further, path-based truncate() makes no checks based on file-largeness, unlike
> ftruncate().
Right, but truncate in general is used to make files *smaller* so I'm
having trouble thinking of a scenario where a largefile-oblivious
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So what this means is that on 32-bit systems, if we have a userspace
> program which isn't using the Largefile-enabled, and it opens a file
> which is larger than can be addressed with a 32-bit off_t, it can get
> surprised and possibly cause data loss.
Good point. I was
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:24:50PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> (4) fs/open.c: Length check in ftruncate().
>
> (5) fs/open.c: Length check in generic_file_open().
>
> All but the first two are just making length checks that are waived
> unconditionally on a 64-bit system. Just skip the
4 matches
Mail list logo
