[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab2734ee530dd992dd5d95677723914b@etersoft.ru>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:25:23 +0300
From: Vitaly Lipatov <lav@...rsoft.ru>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: wine-patches <wine-patches@...ehq.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs/fcntl: restore checking against COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX
for F_GETLK64
Jeff Layton писал 14.11.17 22:12:
...
> Wait...
>
> Does this do anything at all in the case where you pass in
> COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX? l_start and l_len are either off_t or loff_t
> (depending on arch).
>
> Either one will fit in the F_GETLK64/F_OFD_GETLK struct, so I don't see
> a need to check here.
I am not sure, can off_t be bigger than loff_t ?
If not, we have just skip checking against COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX.
...
>> @@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fcntl64, unsigned int, fd,
>> unsigned int, cmd,
>> err = fcntl_getlk(f.file, convert_fcntl_cmd(cmd), &flock);
>> if (err)
>> break;
>> - err = fixup_compat_flock(&flock);
>> + err = fixup_compat_flock(&flock, COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX);
>> if (err)
>> return err;
>> err = put_compat_flock64(&flock, compat_ptr(arg));
>
> Maybe a simpler fix would be to just remove the fixup_compat_flock call
> above?
>
> PS: if you send any more patches, please cc Christoph. He did the
Ok.
--
С уважением,
Виталий Липатов,
Etersoft
Powered by blists - more mailing lists