From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Tweedie <sct@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] s_maxbytes handling
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:02:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010523190222.J27177@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3B0A7C0F.C824FDB5@uow.edu.au> <E152Dik-00021y-00@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <E152Dik-00021y-00@the-village.bc.nu>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:05:14PM +0100
Hi,
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The s_maxbytes logic is different from the
> > MAX_NON_LFS logic:
> > if ( pos + count > MAX_NON_LFS && !(file->f_flags&O_LARGEFILE)) {
> > if (pos >= MAX_NON_LFS) {
> > send_sig(SIGXFSZ, current, 0);
> > goto out;
> > }
> The spec says of write
> [EFBIG]
> The file is a regular file, nbyte is greater than 0 and the
> starting position is greater than or equal to the offset
> maximum established in the open file description associated
> with fildes.
>
> Which seems to say to me that if we write > 0 bytes and we start at or
> on the boundary we should error - which would agree with your change.
SuS also states
If a write() requests that more bytes be written than there is room
for (for example, the ulimit or the physical end of a medium), only as
many bytes as there is room for will be written. For example, suppose
there is space for 20 bytes more in a file before reaching a limit. A
write of 512 bytes will return 20. The next write of a non-zero number
of bytes will give a failure return (except as noted below) and the
implementation will generate a SIGXFSZ signal for the thread.
so SIGXFSZ plus -EFBIG returned would appear to be the correct
behaviour. That's certainly what 2.2 used to when it encountered such
limits.
Cheers,
Stephen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-23 18:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-05-22 12:52 [patch] s_maxbytes handling Andrew Morton
2001-05-22 13:27 ` Alan Cox
2001-05-22 14:47 ` Andrew Morton
2001-05-22 15:05 ` Alan Cox
2001-05-22 17:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-05-22 18:24 ` David N. Lombard
2001-05-23 18:02 ` Stephen C. Tweedie [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-05-22 19:33 Andries.Brouwer
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=20010523190222.J27177@redhat.com \
--to=sct@redhat.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andrewm@uow.edu.au \
--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.