From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/pipe: fix shift by 64 in F_SETPIPE_SZ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:55:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57B18386.8050401@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160815083443.GC14695@1wt.eu>
On 08/15/2016 10:34 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:22:38AM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> In both cases I found it better to be more conservative in what we
>> accept, i.e. I haven't checked whether the rest of the code would
>> support pipe buffers > INT_MAX on 64-bit and I think it's a slightly
>> bigger job to check that (not just for the person making the change, but
>> for everybody else looking at/reviewing it) -- it's already tricky
>> enough to verify that this change by itself is safe and correct IMHO.
>
> Well in fact in my opinion it's the opposite, because if we ensure the
> function works well over all its argument type's range, the caller has
> less trouble figuring what sub-part of the range is OK. This is exactly
> the current issue where you have to ensure that :
>
> unsigned int arg <= INT_MAX
It's not just about this one function, but all the other code in pipe.c
now has to cope with pipe buffers > INT_MAX as well.
For example all the fields in struct pipe_inode_info referring to
buffers are unsigned int (nrbufs, curbuf, buffers). Unless we also
change those to unsigned long, the code will definitely not support
buffer sizes up to LONG_MAX on 64-bit.
That's why I think it's a much, much bigger task to review (and make)
such a change.
Vegard
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-15 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-12 12:35 [PATCH] fs/pipe: fix shift by 64 in F_SETPIPE_SZ Vegard Nossum
2016-08-15 8:06 ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-15 8:22 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-15 8:34 ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-15 8:55 ` Vegard Nossum [this message]
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=57B18386.8050401@oracle.com \
--to=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox