linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: clarify extending writes handling

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: <20250820021143.1069-1-luochunsheng@ustc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:11:43 +0800
From: Chunsheng Luo <luochunsheng@...c.edu>
To: miklos@...redi.hu
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	luochunsheng@...c.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: clarify extending writes handling

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:07:19 Miklos Szeredi wrote:

>>
>> Only flush extending writes (up to LLONG_MAX) for files with upcoming
>> write operations, and Fix confusing 'end' parameter usage.
>
> Patch looks correct, but it changes behavior on input file of
> copy_file_range(), which is not explained here.

Thank you for your review.

For the copy_file_range input file, since it only involves read operations,
I think it is not necessary to flush to LLONG_MAX. Therefore, for the input file, 
flushing to the end is sufficient.

If you think my understanding is correct, I can resend a revised version of
the patch to update the commit log and include a clear explanation regarding
the behavior changes in 'fuse_copy_file_range' and 'fuse_file_fallocate' operations.

Thanks
Chunsheng Luo