Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 84549 - vsftpd - files > 2GB inaccessible
vsftpd - files > 2GB inaccessible
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: vsftpd (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Bill Nottingham
Mike McLean
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2003-02-18 13:16 EST by Rick Johnson
Modified: 2014-03-16 22:34 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-02-18 14:45:56 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rick Johnson 2003-02-18 13:16:22 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; YComp

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:

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 13:24:56 EST
1.0.1-8 shows:

in the changelog. 

Can we make this bugfix available via up2date?
Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2003-02-18 14:45:56 EST
At this point, unlikely.

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