Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:39:44 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Drop O_LARGEFILE from F_GETFL for POSIX compliance |
| |
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > On 64bit architectures open() sets O_LARGEFILE implicitely. This causes the LSB > testsuite to fail, which checks that F_GETFL only returns the flags set by > a previous open. > > According to the POSIX standards gurus the Linux behaviour is not compliant. > > This patch fixes this by just not reporting O_LARGEFILE in F_GETFL. > > This has been in several shipping SuSE releases and the x86-64.org CVS > treee for a long time, so is unlikely to break anything. > > -Andi > > diff -burpN -X ../KDIFX linux-2.4.26-pre5/fs/fcntl.c linux-merge/fs/fcntl.c > --- linux-2.4.26-pre5/fs/fcntl.c 2004-01-13 10:29:17.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-merge/fs/fcntl.c 2003-10-23 15:40:52.000000000 +0200 > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static long do_fcntl(unsigned int fd, un > set_close_on_exec(fd, arg&1); > break; > case F_GETFL: > - err = filp->f_flags; > + err = filp->f_flags & ~O_LARGEFILE; > break; > case F_SETFL: > lock_kernel();
eh? If the application on a 64-bit box does
open("foo", O_LARGEFILE|O_RDWR);
then a subsequent F_GETFL will now return just O_RDWR, will it not? So it's still posixly incorrect?
I think open() needs to set O_KERNEL_LARGEFILE, and we mask that off in F_GETFL, and test for (O_LARGEFILE|O_KERNEL_LARGEFILE) everywhere.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |