From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:06:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:06:23 -0500 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:3089 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:06:14 -0500 From: Paul Mackerras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15520.21196.511499.316840@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:51:56 +1100 (EST) To: Theodore Tso Cc: Andrew Morton , "H . J . Lu" , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, linux kernel , GNU C Library Subject: Re: Does e2fsprogs-1.26 work on mips? In-Reply-To: <20020326015440.A12162@thunk.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.7.2 Reply-To: paulus@samba.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Theodore Tso writes: > 3) RLIMIT_FILESIZE should not apply to block devices!!! Absolutely. I would go further and say that it should only apply to writes to a regular file that would extend the file past the filesize limit. At the moment the check in generic_file_write is simply whether the file offset is greater than the limit, or would be greater than the limit after the write. This doesn't seem right to me. If, for example, my RLIMIT_FILESIZE is 1MB, and I have write access to an existing 100MB file, I think I should be able to write anywhere in that file as long as I don't try to extend it. If we did that then the block device case would fall out, since you can't extend block devices (not by writing past the end of them anyway). Paul.