From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54458 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753428AbcLAK3e (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:29:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 18:29:32 +0800 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use xfs_vn_setattr_size to check on new size Message-ID: <20161201102932.GD29149@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20161201101800.11419-1-eguan@redhat.com> <20161201102635.GA23215@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161201102635.GA23215@infradead.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:26:35AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:18:00PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > Commit 6552321831dc ("xfs: remove i_iolock and use i_rwsem in the > > VFS inode instead") introduced a regression that truncate(2) doesn't > > check on new size, so it succeeds even if the new size exceeds the > > current resource limit. Because xfs_setattr_size() was used instead > > of xfs_vn_setattr_size(), and the latter calls xfs_vn_change_ok() > > first to do sanity check on permission and new size. > > Oops, looks like this was a merge error.. > > > > > This is found by truncate03 test from ltp, and the following is a > > simplified reproducer: > > > > #!/bin/bash > > dev=/dev/sda5 > > mnt=/mnt/xfs > > > > mkfs -t xfs -f $dev > > mount $dev $mnt > > > > # set max file size to 16k > > ulimit -f 16 > > truncate -s $((16 * 1024 + 1)) /mnt/xfs/testfile > > [ $? -eq 0 ] && echo "FAIL: truncate exceeded max file size" > > ulimit -f unlimited > > umount $mnt > > Can you add this to xfstests? Sure, I'll work on it. > > The patch looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Thanks! Eryu