linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701301726280.3611@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:28:38 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
cc:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, akpm@...l.org, dev@...ru,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers



On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 
> Also, that patch would break many 32-bit programs not compiled with large
> offsets when run in compatibility mode on a 64-bit kernel. If they were to
> do a stat on this inode, it would likely generate an EOVERFLOW error since
> the pointer address would probably not fit in a 32 bit field.
> 
> That problem was the whole impetus for this set of patches.

Well, we have that problem with the slowly incrementing "last_ino" too.

Should we make "last_ino" be "static unsigned int" instead of "long"?

Does anybody actually even use the old stat() with 32-bit interfaces? We 
warn for it, and we've done so for a long time.. I dont' remember people 
even complaining about the warning, so..

		Linus
-
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/