From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec 13 11:42:27 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B1016A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:42:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.squidge.com (mail0.squidge.com [195.10.252.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D3643D5F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:42:26 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from henry@jot.to)
Received: from tickle (tickle.netcraft.com [195.92.95.103])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mail.squidge.com (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBDBgMp4082138
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:42:22 GMT
Message-Id: <200412131142.iBDBgMp4082138@mail.squidge.com>
From: "henry" <henry@jot.to>
To: <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:42:17 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Thread-Index: AcThCMwaTwUgGpJLR1SK+cqp6CjI9A==
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS at mail.squidge.com
X-Spam-Level: 3.9   
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:08:53 +0000
Subject: du(1)/fts(3)  integer overflow
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:42:27 -0000

I have noticed a problem with the fts(3) library or the way du(1) interacts
with it.

A 3.2TiB file gives the following output:
> du -cs /fs/file
3408720016      /fs/file
-886247279      total
> du -hcs /fs/file
3.2T    /fs/file
        total
> 

This is because while stat(2) reports blocks as a 64bit number du(1) uses
the 32bit value FTSENT.fts_number to store the result:
du.c (1.36):
269:                            p->fts_parent->fts_number +=
p->fts_statp->st_blocks;
270:            }
271:            savednumber = p->fts_parent->fts_number;
272:    }

The simplest change appears to be to make fts_number 64bit however this
changes the fts(3) abi, so I am not sure if this is acceptable.

Thoughts?