linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] e4defrag: fix build when posix

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:	Wed, 1 Jan 2014 15:46:50 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e4defrag: fix build when posix_fadvise is missing

On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 09:08:00PM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
> 
> Yes. uClibc does provide posix_fadvise64() when __NR_fadvise64_64 is 
> available.
> 
> > Maybe the better fix would be to try to use posix_fadvise64 if it is exists, 
> > with posix_fadvise() and the locally defined posix_fadvise() as fallbacks.
> 
> OK. So you suggest to add another autoconf test for posix_fadvise64 and use 
> that as a fall back before trying direct syscall()?

Yes, I think that's the more general and hence the more correct
answer.  In fact what we have right now is arguably wrong, since on a
32-bit platform where off_t is 32-bits, and which defines
posix_fadvise, we wouldn't correctly handle files that are larger than
2GB.  So if posix_fadvise64 exists, we should be using in preference
to posix_fadvise(), even if both are provided by the C library.

Would you mind sending such a revised patch?

Many thanks!!

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html