From: Mike Frysinger Subject: Re: rquota overflow fix never applied ? Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:20:44 -0400 Message-ID: <200508300920.44405.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <200508300108.52636.vapier@gentoo.org> <17171.63513.738531.932794@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EA62f-0001Ff-7U for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:20:45 -0700 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([134.68.220.30]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1EA62e-0007Zq-RH for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:20:45 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EA62Y-0002TQ-3G for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:20:38 +0000 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <17171.63513.738531.932794@cse.unsw.edu.au> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Tuesday 30 August 2005 02:09 am, Neil Brown wrote: > On Tuesday August 30, vapier@gentoo.org wrote: > > Gentoo and Fedora both apply an old patch to resolve an overflow issue > > ... is this just a case of fixes never going upstream or is there a > > reason this hasnt been applied ... if so, can someone please clue me in > > ;) > > Well..... the patch does seem to be somewhat flawed ..... > There is a comment, and matching code, and the code is changed, but > not the comment !!! :-) i'm just the messenger, i didnt write it ;) > However I don't think that would be the reason. I think it either has > not been sent upstream, it when it was it was missed and not resent. > > I have added it to my tree, with appropriate changes to the comment. > > However I seem to be a bit thick today and cannot see where the > overflow is happening. > dqblk is 6 u_int32_t's and 2 time_t's > struct rquota (after rq_bhardlimit) is 8 u_int's > > On what arch are there different? > (maybe time_t isn't 32bits everwhere, is that it?) the overflow occurs on 64bit arches due to the size differences in time_t ... for original description of the issue and author of the patch, please see (sorry, should have included this in the first e-mail): http://bugs.gentoo.org/72113 -mike ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs