Hi, Thanks Cong Wang for the kind reminding regarding the patch format. We did notice that the total_remaining_zeroes need be revised as well, and the start_offset_in_page, num_bytes need not be revised (always smaller than PAGE_CACHE_SIZE, even the huge page size is supported, the 4G page size is not present in the current world?) but we forget to include the revision for total_remaining_zeroes, so here comes the patch. Cheers, Li Wang Signed-off-by: Li Wang Yunchuan Wen --- --- a/fs/ecryptfs/read_write.c 2012-01-19 17:34:54.666940824 +0800 +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/read_write.c 2012-01-19 17:35:16.257940840 +0800 @@ -130,13 +130,13 @@ int ecryptfs_write(struct inode *ecryptf pgoff_t ecryptfs_page_idx = (pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT); size_t start_offset_in_page = (pos & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK); size_t num_bytes = (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - start_offset_in_page); - size_t total_remaining_bytes = ((offset + size) - pos); + loff_t total_remaining_bytes = ((offset + size) - pos); if (num_bytes > total_remaining_bytes) num_bytes = total_remaining_bytes; if (pos < offset) { /* remaining zeros to write, up to destination offset */ - size_t total_remaining_zeros = (offset - pos); + loff_t total_remaining_zeros = (offset - pos); if (num_bytes > total_remaining_zeros) num_bytes = total_remaining_zeros; ---------- Origin message ---------- >From"Tyler Hicks" >To"Cong Wang" >SubjectRe: [PATCH] eCryptfs: infinite loop bug >Date2012-01-19 05:40:51 On 2012-01-18 23:26:52, Cong Wang wrote: > On 01/18/2012 03:30 PM, Li Wang wrote: > >Hi, > > There is an infinite loop bug in eCryptfs, to make it present, > >just truncate to generate a huge file (>= 4G) on a 32-bit machine > >under the plain text foleder mounted with eCryptfs, a simple command > >'truncate -s 4G dummy' is enough. Note: 4GB is smaller than 4G, > >therefore the following command 'truncate -s 4GB dummy' will not trigger this bug. > >The bug comes from a data overflow, the patch below fixes it. > > > > > > Hi, > > Your patch is not correctly generated, you need to make the diff on > top of the source tree. > > Also, after reviewing the code, I think there are more places need > to fix. Can you try my patch below? {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I