All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] VFS: Kill use of O_LARGEFILE inside the kernel
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:51:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150922155104.GA2296@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150922152450.32539.55285.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

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 length checks, assuming
> that O_LARGEFILE is actually set.

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.

Is this something we are willing to live with?  After all, there was a
originally a really good reason for the O_LARGEFILE flag in the first
place, and it was primarily about making sure that a non-LARGEFILE
capable program would hard fail on the open, instead of after it had
trashed the user's data.  Granted that 32-bit systems are rarer these
days, and hopefully this isn't a situation that would come up that
often in embedded systems, but if breaking this functionality is
something that we are deliberately going to be doing, we should
discuss it explicitly, and document the decision in the commit
message.

Was there a reason that motivated this change, other than just an
clean up?

						- Ted

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] VFS: Kill use of O_LARGEFILE inside the kernel
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:51:04 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150922155104.GA2296@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150922152450.32539.55285.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

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 length checks, assuming
> that O_LARGEFILE is actually set.

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.

Is this something we are willing to live with?  After all, there was a
originally a really good reason for the O_LARGEFILE flag in the first
place, and it was primarily about making sure that a non-LARGEFILE
capable program would hard fail on the open, instead of after it had
trashed the user's data.  Granted that 32-bit systems are rarer these
days, and hopefully this isn't a situation that would come up that
often in embedded systems, but if breaking this functionality is
something that we are deliberately going to be doing, we should
discuss it explicitly, and document the decision in the commit
message.

Was there a reason that motivated this change, other than just an
clean up?

						- Ted

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-09-22 15:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-22 15:24 [RFC PATCH 1/2] VFS: Kill use of O_LARGEFILE inside the kernel David Howells
2015-09-22 15:24 ` David Howells
2015-09-22 15:25 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] VFS: Don't pass O_LARGEFILE when opening a file internally David Howells
2015-09-22 15:25   ` David Howells
2015-09-22 15:51 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2015-09-22 15:51   ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] VFS: Kill use of O_LARGEFILE inside the kernel Theodore Ts'o
2015-09-22 16:12 ` David Howells
2015-09-22 16:12   ` David Howells
2015-09-22 19:25   ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-09-22 19:25     ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-09-22 21:45   ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-22 21:45     ` Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150922155104.GA2296@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.