[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190321211450.v5kmh35ql2fv2cfj@mcrowe.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 21:14:50 +0000
From: Mike Crowe <mac@...owe.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: kmsg: lseek errors confuse glibc's dprintf
On Thursday 21 March 2019 at 11:33:33 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:47 AM Alexander Sverdlin
> <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Mike and all,
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:31:32 +0000
> > Mike Crowe <mac@...owe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > glibc's dprintf implementation does not work correctly with /dev/kmsg file
> > > descriptors because glibc treats receiving EBADF and EINVAL from lseek when
> > > trying to determine the current file position as errors. See
> > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17830
> >
> > we need to conclude on this issue. This is a real bug which is ignored
> > for 4 years now. Mike, would you like to re-send a formal patch?
> > I can do it as well, preserving a link to your original patch/report.
> > In case you'd like to post it yourself, I can be a tester and/or
> > provide a reproducer.
>
> The patch needs to be rebased because of the changed file
> location. I would also suggest adding a "Cc: stable@...nel.org"
> tag so it will get backported into stable kernels.
>
> > > >>From what I can tell prior to Kay Sievers printk record commit
> > > e11fea92e13fb91c50bacca799a6131c81929986, calling lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_CUR)
> > > with such a file descriptor would not return an error.
> > >
> > > Prior to Kay's change, Arnd Bergmann's commit
> > > 6038f373a3dc1f1c26496e60b6c40b164716f07e seemed to go to some lengths to
> > > preserve the successful return code rather than returning (the perhaps more
> > > logical) -ESPIPE.
> > >
> > > glibc is happy with either a successful return or -ESPIPE.
> > >
> > > For maximum compatibility it seems that success should be returned but
> > > given Kay's new seek interface perhaps this isn't helpful.
> > >
> > > This patch ensures that such a seek succeeds:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > > index 02d6b6d..b3ff6f0 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > > @@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ static loff_t devkmsg_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> > > loff_t ret = 0;
> > >
> > > if (!user)
> > > - return -EBADF;
> > > + return (whence == SEEK_CUR) ? 0 : -EBADF;
> > > if (offset)
> > > return -ESPIPE;
> > >
> > > @@ -718,6 +718,11 @@ static loff_t devkmsg_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> > > user->idx = log_next_idx;
> > > user->seq = log_next_seq;
> > > break;
> > > + case SEEK_CUR:
> > > + /* For compatibility with userspace requesting the
> > > + * current file position. */
> > > + ret = 0;
> > > + break;
> > > default:
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > (although it could be argued that the !user case should return -ESPIPE
> > > rather than EBADF since the file descriptor _is_ valid.)
>
> I don't think the !user case can ever be hit, I would just leave that
> to return -BADF and not touch it.
I originally wrote the patch for linux-3.8(!) and back then a write-only
kmsg instance had no private data. It looks like this changed with
750afe7babd117daabebf4855da18e4418ea845e in v4.8, so user should now always
be valid.
> > > @@ -718,6 +718,11 @@ static loff_t devkmsg_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> > > user->idx = log_next_idx;
> > > user->seq = log_next_seq;
> > > break;
> > > + case SEEK_CUR:
> > > + /* For compatibility with userspace expecting SEEK_CUR
> > > + * to not yield EINVAL. */
> > > + ret = -ESPIPE;
> > > + break;
> > > default:
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Either makes dprintf work, but is either the right solution?
>
> I'd vote for -ESPIPE, for consistency with the offset!=0 case, but
> etiher one is fine with me here.
It seems that this is the version we've successfully been running in our
kernel since then, so that's good.
Thanks.
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists