On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> GCC warns about using llseek and suggests lseek64 instead. That works
> for me, but up till 2.6.11 plain lseek worked too. I guess it really
> shouldn't have?
Well, we have had various special-cases for /dev/[k]mem to try to make it
work even with 32-bit lseek in the past (or with 64-bit lseek on archs
that need the high bit set). So I wouldn't say "shouldn't have" - I'd love
it if it worked, but my ove for it working is somewhat tempered by the
need for it not screwing up everything else in the kernel ;)
Now, it's entirely possible that we shoul djust make "sys_lseek()" work
differently: right now it _always_ sign-extends its offset from "off_t" to
"loff_t", but the thing is, for a SEEK_SET, it probably makes more sense
to zero-extend it (since a negative SEEK_SET just doesn't make any sense).
So a hacky alternative might be something like the appended, but I have to
admit that it's pretty damn hacky even if it makes sense at some level..
Oh, btw, this will cause it to still return EOVERFLOW, you'd need to also
change that error return logic.
Linus
-----
diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
--- a/fs/read_write.c
+++ b/fs/read_write.c
@@ -137,7 +137,11 @@ asmlinkage off_t sys_lseek(unsigned int
retval = -EINVAL;
if (origin <= 2) {
- loff_t res = vfs_llseek(file, offset, origin);
+ /* SEEK_SET zero-extends, others sign-extend */
+ loff_t res = offset;
+ if (!origin)
+ res = (unsigned long)offset;
+ res = vfs_llseek(file, res, origin);
retval = res;
if (res != (loff_t)retval)
retval = -EOVERFLOW; /* LFS: should only happen on 32 bit platforms */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |