linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] shmem: respect MAX_LFS

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, 9 Apr 2009 16:36:10 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	yur@...raft.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] shmem: respect MAX_LFS_FILESIZE

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:56:13 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:

> Question: couldn't the 32-bit kernel's MAX_LFS_FILESIZE be almost doubled?
> It limits the pagecache index to a signed long, but we use an unsigned long.

I expect it would be OK, yes.  The only failure mode I can think of is
if someone is using signed long as a pagecache index and I'd be pretty
surprised if we've made that mistake anywhere.  The potential for goofs
is higher down in filesystems, but they shouldn't be using pagecache
indices much at all.

Of course it does invite people to write applications which then fail
on older kernels, but such is life.

--
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/