1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.BUGS.DIST

  • Bug#265819: libc6: sendfile64() should fall back to sendfile() if not i

    From Andres Salomon@1:229/2 to All on Sun Aug 15 09:30:08 2004
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.glibc
    From: [email protected]

    Package: libc6
    Version: 2.3.2.ds1-16
    Severity: normal

    (Not filing as wishlist because, well, it's a bug.)
    If sendfile64() fails because the underlying OS doesn't implement it (as
    linux 2.4.x fails to do for a number of architectures), it currently
    just breaks. If large file support is turned on, then there's no way
    for user applications to fall back to normal sendfile(). Since glibc
    already takes care of replacing sendfile() calls w/ sendfile64(), it
    should also handle calling sendfile() if sendfile64() isn't implemented
    by the OS.



    -- System Information:
    Debian Release: 3.1
    APT prefers unstable
    APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
    Architecture: i386 (i686)
    Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-k7
    Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US

    Versions of packages libc6 depends on:
    ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-7 The Berkeley database routines [gl

    -- no debconf information


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
  • From GOTO Masanori@1:229/2 to Andres Salomon on Mon Aug 16 02:50:05 2004
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.glibc
    From: [email protected]

    At Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:02:47 -0400,
    Andres Salomon wrote:
    (Not filing as wishlist because, well, it's a bug.)
    If sendfile64() fails because the underlying OS doesn't implement it (as linux 2.4.x fails to do for a number of architectures), it currently
    just breaks. If large file support is turned on, then there's no way
    for user applications to fall back to normal sendfile(). Since glibc
    already takes care of replacing sendfile() calls w/ sendfile64(), it
    should also handle calling sendfile() if sendfile64() isn't implemented
    by the OS.

    Do you have a test case?

    Regards,
    -- gotom



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
  • From Andres Salomon@1:229/2 to GOTO Masanori on Mon Aug 16 04:30:12 2004
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.glibc
    From: [email protected]

    On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 09:23 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
    At Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:02:47 -0400,
    Andres Salomon wrote:
    (Not filing as wishlist because, well, it's a bug.)
    If sendfile64() fails because the underlying OS doesn't implement it (as linux 2.4.x fails to do for a number of architectures), it currently
    just breaks. If large file support is turned on, then there's no way
    for user applications to fall back to normal sendfile(). Since glibc already takes care of replacing sendfile() calls w/ sendfile64(), it
    should also handle calling sendfile() if sendfile64() isn't implemented
    by the OS.

    Do you have a test case?

    Regards,
    -- gotom


    Currently, apache2 is our test case. Adam Conrad or myself will send
    you a smaller test case, post-sarge; in the meantime, this bug can wait.

    --
    Andres Salomon <[email protected]>

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBBIBYZ78o9R9NraMQRAqDyAJ9rn4ssrtzLPe9DkSHOLddrrftiBACfahop WoNjVSjRvwyLt1lpXaDbuG4=
    =nuKR
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)