linux-kernel - Re: file offset corruption on 32-bit machines?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:11:24 +0200
From:	Martin Mares <mj@....cz>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: file offset corruption on 32-bit machines?

Hello!

> [*] file_pos_{read,write} (fs/read_write.c) are not called under lock (in 
> sys_read, sys_write, ...), so even if f_pos is written atomically, you will 
> be able to get races when accessing shared descriptor from different threads.

There are however cases when such behavior is perfectly valid: For example
you can have a file of records of a fixed size, whose order does not matter.
Then multiple processes can produce the records in parallel, sharing
a single fd.

> I think that POSIX states, that behavior is undefined under these conditions.

Do you have a pointer to that?

				Have a nice fortnight
-- 
Martin `MJ' Mares                          <mj@....cz>   http://mj.ucw.cz/
Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Rep., Earth
Mr. Worf, scan that ship."  "Aye, Captain... 600 DPI?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/