linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exec: allow > 2GB executables to run on 64-bit systems

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: <p73fxyhj5f7.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:41:00 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: allow > 2GB executables to run on 64-bit systems

Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com> writes:

> When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit
> system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its
> open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro.  This patch adds a call
> to force_o_largefile() call in open_exec(), as done in sys_open() and
> sys_openat().

Wouldn't it be better to just always pass O_LARGEFILE unconditionally
there? e.g. in theory a 2.5GB executable should work on i386 and binfmt_*
shouldn't have any problems with a large file.
That would simplify your patch.

-Andi

--
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/