[PATCH 0/2] Squashing long inodes.

[Florian Weimer]

On 02/27/2014 06:22 PM, Denis Obrezkov wrote:

> Should it be solved? Should it be solved a different way?

Replacing out-of-range inode numbers with 0 might be better because this 
seems to be the value applications expect for file systems without 
inodes.  Pretending that you have unique inode values while you actually 
don't seems rather problematic, and there is code out there that will 
break randomly due to this.

However, glibc should always use stat64 and friends internally, to avoid 
failures on 32-bit systems.  Beyond that, there is little that we can do 
while preserving ABI.

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team