On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 22:25 +0300, Vitaly Lipatov wrote: > Jeff Layton писал 14.11.17 22:12: > ... > > Wait... > > > > Does this do anything at all in the case where you pass in > > COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX? l_start and l_len are either off_t or loff_t > > (depending on arch). > > > > Either one will fit in the F_GETLK64/F_OFD_GETLK struct, so I don't see > > a need to check here. > > I am not sure, can off_t be bigger than loff_t ? I don't think so, at least not in any possible situation we care about here. > If not, we have just skip checking against COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX. > > ... > > > @@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fcntl64, unsigned int, fd, > > > unsigned int, cmd, > > > err = fcntl_getlk(f.file, convert_fcntl_cmd(cmd), &flock); > > > if (err) > > > break; > > > - err = fixup_compat_flock(&flock); > > > + err = fixup_compat_flock(&flock, COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX); > > > if (err) > > > return err; > > > err = put_compat_flock64(&flock, compat_ptr(arg)); > > > > Maybe a simpler fix would be to just remove the fixup_compat_flock call > > above? > > Ok. If you have a test for this, mind testing and sending a patch? Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
