Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755753AbXLETxH (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:53:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754849AbXLETww (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:52:52 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:33932 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752891AbXLETwv (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:52:51 -0500 Message-ID: <475702E7.1000607@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:58:31 -0500 From: Dave Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030611 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: allow > 2GB executables to run on 64-bit systems References: <4756C590.9080301@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 949 Lines: 28 Andi Kleen wrote: > Dave Anderson writes: > > >>When a executable that is greater than 2GB in size is attempted on a 64-bit >>system on a file system that calls, or uses generic_file_open() as its >>open handler, it fails with an EOVERFLOW erro. This patch adds a call >>to force_o_largefile() call in open_exec(), as done in sys_open() and >>sys_openat(). > > > Wouldn't it be better to just always pass O_LARGEFILE unconditionally > there? e.g. in theory a 2.5GB executable should work on i386 and binfmt_* > shouldn't have any problems with a large file. > That would simplify your patch. > > -Andi > I agree in theory. We've only seen instances on 64-bitters... Dave -- 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/