lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: kmsg: lseek errors confuse glibc's dprintf
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:47 AM Alexander Sverdlin
<alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Mike and all,
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:31:32 +0000
> Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> wrote:
>
> > glibc's dprintf implementation does not work correctly with /dev/kmsg file
> > descriptors because glibc treats receiving EBADF and EINVAL from lseek when
> > trying to determine the current file position as errors. See
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17830
>
> we need to conclude on this issue. This is a real bug which is ignored
> for 4 years now. Mike, would you like to re-send a formal patch?
> I can do it as well, preserving a link to your original patch/report.
> In case you'd like to post it yourself, I can be a tester and/or
> provide a reproducer.

The patch needs to be rebased because of the changed file
location. I would also suggest adding a "Cc: stable@kernel.org"
tag so it will get backported into stable kernels.

> > >>From what I can tell prior to Kay Sievers printk record commit
> > e11fea92e13fb91c50bacca799a6131c81929986, calling lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_CUR)
> > with such a file descriptor would not return an error.
> >
> > Prior to Kay's change, Arnd Bergmann's commit
> > 6038f373a3dc1f1c26496e60b6c40b164716f07e seemed to go to some lengths to
> > preserve the successful return code rather than returning (the perhaps more
> > logical) -ESPIPE.
> >
> > glibc is happy with either a successful return or -ESPIPE.
> >
> > For maximum compatibility it seems that success should be returned but
> > given Kay's new seek interface perhaps this isn't helpful.
> >
> > This patch ensures that such a seek succeeds:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index 02d6b6d..b3ff6f0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > @@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ static loff_t devkmsg_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> > loff_t ret = 0;
> >
> > if (!user)
> > - return -EBADF;
> > + return (whence == SEEK_CUR) ? 0 : -EBADF;
> > if (offset)
> > return -ESPIPE;
> >
> > @@ -718,6 +718,11 @@ static loff_t devkmsg_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> > user->idx = log_next_idx;
> > user->seq = log_next_seq;
> > break;
> > + case SEEK_CUR:
> > + /* For compatibility with userspace requesting the
> > + * current file position. */
> > + ret = 0;
> > + break;
> > default:
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > (although it could be argued that the !user case should return -ESPIPE
> > rather than EBADF since the file descriptor _is_ valid.)

I don't think the !user case can ever be hit, I would just leave that
to return -BADF and not touch it.

> > @@ -718,6 +718,11 @@ static loff_t devkmsg_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence)
> > user->idx = log_next_idx;
> > user->seq = log_next_seq;
> > break;
> > + case SEEK_CUR:
> > + /* For compatibility with userspace expecting SEEK_CUR
> > + * to not yield EINVAL. */
> > + ret = -ESPIPE;
> > + break;
> > default:
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > Either makes dprintf work, but is either the right solution?

I'd vote for -ESPIPE, for consistency with the offset!=0 case, but
etiher one is fine with me here.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-21 11:34    [W:0.134 / U:29.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site