Bug 84549 - vsftpd - files > 2GB inaccessible
Summary: vsftpd - files > 2GB inaccessible
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: vsftpd (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: 7.3
Hardware: i386 Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bill Nottingham
QA Contact: Mike McLean
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-02-18 18:16 UTC by Rick Johnson
Modified: 2014-03-17 02:34 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-02-18 19:45:56 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rick Johnson 2003-02-18 18:16:22 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; YComp 5.0.0.0)

Description of problem:
Files larger than 2GB cannot be listed or downloaded using vsftpd 1.01

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
With vsftpd installed:
1. Create a file over >2GB in size in a place accessible via FTP
2. Login using local account or anon which has access to location with >2GB file
3. Do directory listing in directory where large file is present.
4. Attempt to get file using valid file name.
    

Actual Results:  Step 3 - files >2GB in size are not displayed.
Step 4 - file cannot be retrieved

Expected Results:  Step 3 - file should be listed
Step 4 - file should be available for retrieval

Additional info:

Updating to Rawhide package VSFTPD 1.1.3 seems to have solved the issue. 
Perhaps patching backwards so users do not have to give up xinetd functionality 
in Red Hat 7.3 (vsftpd-1.0.1) would be helpful in fixing this bug.

Comment 1 Rick Johnson 2003-02-18 18:24:56 UTC
1.0.1-8 shows:
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64

in the changelog. 

Can we make this bugfix available via up2date?

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2003-02-18 19:45:56 UTC
At this point, unlikely.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.