From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756344AbdKNTZf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:25:35 -0500
Received: from mail.etersoft.ru ([91.232.225.46]:51388 "EHLO mail.etersoft.ru"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1756089AbdKNTZZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:25:25 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.etersoft.ru 9F0716D6AF0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:25:23 +0300
From: Vitaly Lipatov <lav@etersoft.ru>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: wine-patches <wine-patches@winehq.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs/fcntl: restore checking against COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX
 for F_GETLK64
Organization: Etersoft
In-Reply-To: <1510686778.4757.11.camel@kernel.org>
References: <20171114134715.21649-1-lav@etersoft.ru>
 <20171114164818.6783-1-lav@etersoft.ru>
 <1510686778.4757.11.camel@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <ab2734ee530dd992dd5d95677723914b@etersoft.ru>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.3
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by nfs id vAEJPcNL008852

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