On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:45:54PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:30 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:33:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> >> >From a Linux client to a Linux server (in fact the same system in this
>> >> example), NFSv4.1, XFS file system:
>> >>
>> >> root@vm:~/xfstests# truncate --size 9223372036854775807 /mnt/nfs1/test
>> >> root@vm:~/xfstests# ls -l /mnt/nfs1/test
>> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9223372036854775806 Feb 8 18:30 /mnt/nfs1/test
>> >> root@vm:~/xfstests# ls -l /mnt/test/test
>> >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9223372036854775807 Feb 8 18:30 /mnt/test/test
>> >>
>> >> so the file gets created with the correct size on the server, but
>> >> the clients shows the size truncated.
>> >>
>> >> This is extraced from xfstests generic/911 which tests clone
>> >> functionality and fails because of this issue.
>> >
>> > Took a quick look at wireshark, and GETATTR is returning the correct
>> > (larger) size.
>> >
>> > Also FSINFO (this is v3) returns 9223372036854775807 as the maximum file
>> > size.
>> >
>>
>> I'll bet it's this:
>>
>> static inline loff_t nfs_size_to_loff_t(__u64 size)
>> {
>> if (size > (__u64) OFFSET_MAX - 1)
>> return OFFSET_MAX - 1;
>> return (loff_t) size;
>> }
>>
>> Should be "return OFFSET_MAX", no?
>
> I guess so
>
> (That's confusing, though--in general, shouldn't the maximum file size
> be one *more* than the maximum offset? But looks like st_size is
> off_t, so, I guess this is just how it is.)
If you ever manage to write to offset OFFSET_MAX, you will never know...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
