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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:36:36 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <>
To:	Bernd Schubert <>
CC:	Andreas Dilger <>,,
	Fan Yong <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 2/4] Return 32/64-bit dir name hash according to usage

On 4/25/12 10:12 AM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> On 04/25/2012 05:05 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 5:24 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-24, at 4:07 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>>>> 1) For SEEK_END, we now return -EINVAL for a positive offset
>>>>> (i.e. past EOF)
>>>> I definitely introduces that one, as I cannot see how an
>>>> application might ever run into it. Especially as ext4
>>>> directories cannot shrink. So if an application tries to exceed
>>>> the directory size limit, it looks to me as some of attempt to
>>>> break something or as an error in the application. However, if
>>>> there should be the slightest chance to break existing
>>>> applications relying on that, we need to remove that.
>>> I think the other reason to avoid SEEK_END + n is that since
>>> SEEK_END for a hash offset is (signed) MAX_LONG, so if one seeks
>>> beyond that it will wrap to a negative offset.
>> Makes sense.
>> Wishing this had been done as a separate patch, though, since it's
>> really addressing a separate issue from the $SUBJECT, and could
>> have used specific documentation of the change.  Nitpicky I know,
>> but it helps.
> Sorry, my fault. 

No worries, I should have reviewed sooner too :)

> Maybe we should simply document it in the code? And
> how do we proceed in general. Shall I write a patch to use
> generic_file_llseek() and update that function to take more
> arguments? I don't think that would go into 3.4.

Unless there is obviously _wrong_ behavior to be fixed I don't think it's needed for 3.4.

We could maybe do one patch to make it lockless again, if there's good confidence in that, since it's sort of a "regression."

Trying to munge things into the upstream seek function would be post-3.4, I'm sure, if it turns out it can be done at all.


> Thanks, Bernd

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists