On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 06:24 -0600, Tim Gardner wrote: > On 10/01/2012 11:46 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > On 2012-10-02 00:52:23, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, > >> please let me know. > > > > Hi - Please drop this patch. It incorrectly calculates f_namelen > > and I haven't had a chance to fix it yet. When I get a fix ready, > > I'll forward the corrected patch to [email protected]. Thanks! > > > > Tyler > > > >> > >> ------------------ > >> > >> From: Tyler Hicks <[email protected]> > >> > >> commit 4a26620df451ad46151ad21d711ed43e963c004e upstream. [...] > Tyler - this is the same patch that we're carrying in every kernel > from Lucid to Quantal, right ? Colin has verified test cases for this, > so I'm curious what you think is wrong. Something unique to 2.6.32 ? > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/885744/comments/5 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/885744/comments/9
As I said in <[email protected]>, pathconf(_PC_NAME_MAX) needs to report an upper bound on the maximum name length, not a lower bound, so that readdir_r() can be used safely. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
