From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] Provide a PATH_MAX-long buffer when expecting ENAMETOOLONG
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:06:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZTaL6rLETxHwvFDr@yuki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87291cdf-0245-c825-d3a3-235e4a4d1f9d@arm.com>
Hi!
> >> A number of tests check that syscalls manipulating paths return
> >> -ENAMETOOLONG when the specified path is longer than allowed. There
> >> are actually two ways this error can be triggered:
> >>
> >> 1. If the given string is longer than PATH_MAX, i.e. 4096 as far as
> >> the kernel is concerned, then the getname() helper will fail and
> >> the kernel will return -ENAMETOOLONG right away.
> >>
> >> 2. If the string fits in PATH_MAX, but the filesystem rejects the
> >> path name, for instance because one of its components is longer
> >> than the support file name length (e.g. 255 for ext4).
> > Ideally we should have at least one test that would hit the 1. as well...
>
> This is what patch 3 is meant to achieve: instead of hitting 2. we now
> systematically hit 1.
Sigh, I meant 2. I guess that we would have to loop over filesystems
(easily done with .all_filesystems = 1) and pass very long filename. Or
do we have such test already?
Looking at our tests, the rename10.c is actually one of two tests that
sets .all_fileystems and checks for ENAMETOOLONG. Looking at the
filesystem limits, all seems to have limits that are <= 255 characters,
the only problem is a definition of character. For utf8 character 255
characters are around 1021 (including nul terminator). So I suppose that
if we pass another buffer that is PATH_MAX in length and has PATH_MAX-1
characters we should consistenly hit 2. Or do I miss something?
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-23 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-23 13:56 [LTP] [PATCH 0/3] Various fixes for out-of-bound uaccess Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-23 13:56 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/3] syscalls/{, f}setxattr: Fix passing of value pointer Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-23 13:56 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] syscalls/msgctl06: Pass an appropriate struct to msgsnd() Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-23 13:56 ` [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] Provide a PATH_MAX-long buffer when expecting ENAMETOOLONG Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-23 14:40 ` Cyril Hrubis
2023-10-23 14:50 ` Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-23 15:06 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2023-10-24 9:07 ` Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-24 9:36 ` Cyril Hrubis
2023-10-24 10:36 ` Kevin Brodsky
2023-10-23 14:39 ` [LTP] [PATCH 0/3] Various fixes for out-of-bound uaccess Cyril Hrubis
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=ZTaL6rLETxHwvFDr@yuki \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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