[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <706d597b-37bd-7725-a164-9e2b19255fac@nazar.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:03:33 -0400
From: Doug Nazar <nazard@...ar.ca>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wei Fang <fangwei1@...wei.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices
On 8/23/17 4:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Oh, right you are - I'm much too used to 64-bit, where
> MAX_LFS_FILESIZE is basically infinite, and was jusr assuming that it
> was something like the UFS bug we had not that long ago that was due
> to the 32-bit limit.
>
> But yes, on 32-bit, we are limited by the 32-bit index into the page
> cache, and we limit the index to 31 bits too, so we have (PAGE_SIZE <<
> 31) -1, which is that 7ffffffffff.
Yeah, it's an old organically grown storage server (install images, old
vms, etc.) that
I can't convince myself it's worth upgrading.
> The *right* patch is likely to just this instead:
>
> -#define MAX_LFS_FILESIZE (((loff_t)PAGE_SIZE << (BITS_PER_LONG-1))-1)
> +#define MAX_LFS_FILESIZE (((loff_t)PAGE_SIZE <<
> BITS_PER_LONG)-PAGE_SIZE)
>
> which should make MAX_LFS_FILESIZE be 0xffffffff000 and you disk size
> should be ok.
That solves my issue. I'm curious if that check should also be in the
write path. If the
check had been there too I wouldn't have ended up with any corruption.
I'm not sure if anything over 16TB will create/assemble (or if anybody
else is crazy like me).
Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists