Re: [PATCH 6/6] vfs: introduce FMODE_NEG_OFFSET for allowing negative f_pos

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> > +static int
>> > +__negative_fpos_check(struct file *file, loff_t pos, size_t count)
>> > +{
>> > +	/*
>> > +	 * pos or pos+count is negative here, check overflow.
>> > +	 * too big "count" will be caught in rw_verify_area().
>> > +	 */
>> > +	if ((pos < 0) && (pos + count < pos))
>> > +		return -EOVERFLOW;
>> > +	if (file->f_mode & FMODE_NEG_OFFSET)
>> > +		return 0;
>> > +	return -EINVAL;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> >  /*
>> >   * rw_verify_area doesn't like huge counts. We limit
>> >   * them to something that fits in "int" so that others
>> > @@ -222,8 +236,11 @@ int rw_verify_area(int read_write, struc
>> >  	if (unlikely((ssize_t) count < 0))
>> >  		return retval;
>> >  	pos = *ppos;
>> > -	if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0))
>> > -		return retval;
>> > +	if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0)) {
>> > +		retval = __negative_fpos_check(file, pos, count);
>> > +		if (retval)
>> > +			return retval;
>> > +	}
>> >  
>> >  	if (unlikely(inode->i_flock && mandatory_lock(inode))) {
>> >  		retval = locks_mandatory_area(
>> 
>> Um... How do lseek() work? It sounds like to violate error code range.
>
> This is for read-write. As far as I know, 
>   - generic_file_llseek,
>   - default_llseek
>   - no_llseek
>
> doesn't call this function. 

It seems to allow to set negative value to ->f_pos, right? So, lseek()
returns (uses) it?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/