linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] procfs: fix numbering in /proc/locks

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: <4CA3288F.4030200@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:52:47 +0200
From:	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
CC:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: fix numbering in /proc/locks

On 09/29/2010 01:43 PM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Good point. My implementation is definitely wrong. But I'm afraid that
>> moving the increment in locks_next() won't help either. It will fail when
>> a program do something more than just read the file sequentially (use
>> of lseek() for instance). We need a better way to keep track of the
>> current position in the list.
> 
> The seq files core implementation knows about the lseek and
> calls the seq_ops callbacks properly.
> 

Yes, but if read a few lines and then lseek() back. I'm afraid it will call
a few more locks_next() function and thus increase the counter again.
--
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/