Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261742AbUCVFjt (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:39:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261744AbUCVFjt (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:39:49 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:62179 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261742AbUCVFjr (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:39:44 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Andi Kleen Cc: marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop O_LARGEFILE from F_GETFL for POSIX compliance Message-Id: <20040321213944.2fdb980d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040322051318.597ad1f9.ak@suse.de> References: <20040322051318.597ad1f9.ak@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1556 Lines: 44 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On 64bit architectures open() sets O_LARGEFILE implicitely. This causes the LSB > testsuite to fail, which checks that F_GETFL only returns the flags set by > a previous open. > > According to the POSIX standards gurus the Linux behaviour is not compliant. > > This patch fixes this by just not reporting O_LARGEFILE in F_GETFL. > > This has been in several shipping SuSE releases and the x86-64.org CVS > treee for a long time, so is unlikely to break anything. > > -Andi > > diff -burpN -X ../KDIFX linux-2.4.26-pre5/fs/fcntl.c linux-merge/fs/fcntl.c > --- linux-2.4.26-pre5/fs/fcntl.c 2004-01-13 10:29:17.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-merge/fs/fcntl.c 2003-10-23 15:40:52.000000000 +0200 > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static long do_fcntl(unsigned int fd, un > set_close_on_exec(fd, arg&1); > break; > case F_GETFL: > - err = filp->f_flags; > + err = filp->f_flags & ~O_LARGEFILE; > break; > case F_SETFL: > lock_kernel(); eh? If the application on a 64-bit box does open("foo", O_LARGEFILE|O_RDWR); then a subsequent F_GETFL will now return just O_RDWR, will it not? So it's still posixly incorrect? I think open() needs to set O_KERNEL_LARGEFILE, and we mask that off in F_GETFL, and test for (O_LARGEFILE|O_KERNEL_LARGEFILE) everywhere. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/