https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86061 Bug ID: 86061 Summary: Condition for read(2) to return EINVAL is inaccurate Product: Documentation Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P1 Component: man-pages Assignee: documentation_man-pages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter: nodakai@xxxxxxxxx Regression: No The man page reads > If count is greater than SSIZE_MAX, the result is unspecified. However when we look at the implementation, rw_verify_area() which is common to vfs_read(), vfs_write() and so on actually tests if count fits ssize_t or not and returns EINVAL otherwise. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/fs/read_write.c#L348 So the man page should state so. This is also important in terms of conformance/getting closer to POSIX. Quotes from POSIX.1-2008: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/read.html > If the value of nbyte is greater than {SSIZE_MAX}, the result is implementation-defined. where "implementation-defined" is defined as: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap01.html#tag_01_05_02 > Describes a value or behavior that is not defined by POSIX.1-2008 but is selected by an implementor. (...snip...) > > The implementor shall document such a value or behavior so that it can be used correctly by an application. So it cannot be just "unspecified". Moreover, write(2) doesn't say anything about the SSIZE_MAX limit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
