From: "Peter Hartley" <pdh@utter.chaos.org.uk>
To: "Andreas Dilger" <adilger@clusterfs.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: setrlimit and RLIM_INFINITY causing fsck failure, 2.4.18
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:20:53 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <008301c1cf72$ce5801a0$2701230a@electronic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <006701c1cf6d$d9701230$2701230a@electronic> <20020319141554.GL470@turbolinux.com>
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2002 17:45 -0000, Peter Hartley wrote:
> > In particular, this means that an e2fsck 1.27 built against such a glibc
> > will fail with SIGXFS every time on any block device bigger than
2Gbytes.
> > This is because:
> >
> > * e2fsck calls setrlimit(RLIMIT_FSIZE, RLIM_INFINITY) in
> > an attempt to unset the limit. RLIM_INFINITY here is
> > 0xFFFFFFFF. This is IMO the Right Thing.
>
> It is only the right thing if the original limit was not 0xFFFFFFFF.
> Otherwise, it is just adding to the problem, because the problem only
> happens when you try to SET the limit.
True. (Old programs *will* perceive the value as 0xFFFFFFFF if it is
RLIM_INFINITY; the kernel clips it to 0x7FFFFFFF in sys_old_getrlimit() but
glibc expands it again in __new_getrlimit().)
> > Surely the only Right Things to do in the kernel are (a) invent a new
> > setrlimit call that corrects the RLIM_INFINITY value, or (b) have the
> > current setrlimit call correct the RLIM_INFINITY value unconditionally.
>
> (c) rlimit should not apply to block devices.
>
> There were patches for this floating around, and I thought they made it
> into 2.4.18, but they did not.
Looking a bit closer at the particular SIGXFS that kills fsck (in
generic_file_write) there's some S_ISBLK stuff going on just below.
Is the fix just as simple as: (untested) (and with a mailer than mangles
tabs)
--- filemap.c~ Mon Feb 25 19:38:13 2002
+++ filemap.c Tue Mar 19 18:20:40 2002
@@ -2885,9 +2885,9 @@
* Check whether we've reached the file size limit.
*/
err = -EFBIG;
- if (limit != RLIM_INFINITY) {
+ if (limit != RLIM_INFINITY && !S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode)) {
if (pos >= limit) {
send_sig(SIGXFSZ, current, 0);
goto out;
}
All this rlimit stuff is a bit wonky in the presence of 64-bit file sizes
anyway. Perhaps if we fix just the block-device case we can brush the rest
under the carpet?
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-19 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-19 17:45 setrlimit and RLIM_INFINITY causing fsck failure, 2.4.18 Peter Hartley
2002-03-19 14:15 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-03-19 18:20 ` Peter Hartley [this message]
2002-03-19 18:44 ` Alan Cox
2002-03-20 10:12 ` [PATCH] " Peter Hartley
2002-03-19 18:30 ` Alan Cox
2002-03-19 18:17 ` Alan Cox
2002-03-20 0:10 ` Theodore Tso
2002-03-20 2:04 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-03-20 10:09 ` Peter Hartley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='008301c1cf72$ce5801a0$2701230a@electronic' \
--to=pdh@utter.chaos.org.uk \
--cc=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.