Why is stat::st_size 0 for devices but at the same time lseek defines the device size correctly?
I noticed that when I query the size of a device using open + lseek, everything is OK, but when I stat the device I get zero instead of the real device size. The device is clean without any file system and the first bytes of device start with some text like "1234567890ABC". What is wrong?
The code:
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <dirent.h>
bool
GetFileSize(const char* pPath, uint64_t& Size)
{
pPath = "/home/sw/.bashrc";
pPath = "/dev/sda";
struct stat buffer;
if (stat(pPath, &buffer))
{
printf("Failed to stat file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
printf("File size by stat: %" PRIu64 " WTF?n", buffer.st_size);
//
// Note: It's strange, but stat::st_size from the stat call is zero for devices
//
int File = open(pPath, O_RDONLY);
if (File < 0)
{
printf("Failed to open file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
long off = lseek(File, 0, SEEK_END);
if (off == (off_t)-1)
{
printf("Failed to get file size. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
close(File);
return false;
}
close(File);
printf("File size by lseek: %" PRIu64 "n", off);
fflush(stdout);
Size = off;
return true;
}
Output:
File size by stat: 0 WTF?
File size by lseek: 34359738368
If I use stat for a regular file then everything is OK (comment out the line with "/dev/sda"):
File size by stat: 4019 WTF?
File size by lseek: 4019
c linux posix stat
add a comment |
I noticed that when I query the size of a device using open + lseek, everything is OK, but when I stat the device I get zero instead of the real device size. The device is clean without any file system and the first bytes of device start with some text like "1234567890ABC". What is wrong?
The code:
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <dirent.h>
bool
GetFileSize(const char* pPath, uint64_t& Size)
{
pPath = "/home/sw/.bashrc";
pPath = "/dev/sda";
struct stat buffer;
if (stat(pPath, &buffer))
{
printf("Failed to stat file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
printf("File size by stat: %" PRIu64 " WTF?n", buffer.st_size);
//
// Note: It's strange, but stat::st_size from the stat call is zero for devices
//
int File = open(pPath, O_RDONLY);
if (File < 0)
{
printf("Failed to open file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
long off = lseek(File, 0, SEEK_END);
if (off == (off_t)-1)
{
printf("Failed to get file size. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
close(File);
return false;
}
close(File);
printf("File size by lseek: %" PRIu64 "n", off);
fflush(stdout);
Size = off;
return true;
}
Output:
File size by stat: 0 WTF?
File size by lseek: 34359738368
If I use stat for a regular file then everything is OK (comment out the line with "/dev/sda"):
File size by stat: 4019 WTF?
File size by lseek: 4019
c linux posix stat
2
welcome to "stat information is different from seeking+telling information".
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
2
related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/384488/…
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
4
I don’t trust printing the size usingPRIu64
unless you cast the size touint64_t
. That said, you’d probably not get zero if it’s going wrong.
– Jonathan Leffler
16 hours ago
add a comment |
I noticed that when I query the size of a device using open + lseek, everything is OK, but when I stat the device I get zero instead of the real device size. The device is clean without any file system and the first bytes of device start with some text like "1234567890ABC". What is wrong?
The code:
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <dirent.h>
bool
GetFileSize(const char* pPath, uint64_t& Size)
{
pPath = "/home/sw/.bashrc";
pPath = "/dev/sda";
struct stat buffer;
if (stat(pPath, &buffer))
{
printf("Failed to stat file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
printf("File size by stat: %" PRIu64 " WTF?n", buffer.st_size);
//
// Note: It's strange, but stat::st_size from the stat call is zero for devices
//
int File = open(pPath, O_RDONLY);
if (File < 0)
{
printf("Failed to open file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
long off = lseek(File, 0, SEEK_END);
if (off == (off_t)-1)
{
printf("Failed to get file size. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
close(File);
return false;
}
close(File);
printf("File size by lseek: %" PRIu64 "n", off);
fflush(stdout);
Size = off;
return true;
}
Output:
File size by stat: 0 WTF?
File size by lseek: 34359738368
If I use stat for a regular file then everything is OK (comment out the line with "/dev/sda"):
File size by stat: 4019 WTF?
File size by lseek: 4019
c linux posix stat
I noticed that when I query the size of a device using open + lseek, everything is OK, but when I stat the device I get zero instead of the real device size. The device is clean without any file system and the first bytes of device start with some text like "1234567890ABC". What is wrong?
The code:
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <dirent.h>
bool
GetFileSize(const char* pPath, uint64_t& Size)
{
pPath = "/home/sw/.bashrc";
pPath = "/dev/sda";
struct stat buffer;
if (stat(pPath, &buffer))
{
printf("Failed to stat file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
printf("File size by stat: %" PRIu64 " WTF?n", buffer.st_size);
//
// Note: It's strange, but stat::st_size from the stat call is zero for devices
//
int File = open(pPath, O_RDONLY);
if (File < 0)
{
printf("Failed to open file. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
return false;
}
long off = lseek(File, 0, SEEK_END);
if (off == (off_t)-1)
{
printf("Failed to get file size. Error: %s. FilePath: %sn", strerror(errno), pPath);
close(File);
return false;
}
close(File);
printf("File size by lseek: %" PRIu64 "n", off);
fflush(stdout);
Size = off;
return true;
}
Output:
File size by stat: 0 WTF?
File size by lseek: 34359738368
If I use stat for a regular file then everything is OK (comment out the line with "/dev/sda"):
File size by stat: 4019 WTF?
File size by lseek: 4019
c linux posix stat
c linux posix stat
edited 14 hours ago
Boann
37.2k1290121
37.2k1290121
asked 16 hours ago
Alexander SymonenkoAlexander Symonenko
13411
13411
2
welcome to "stat information is different from seeking+telling information".
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
2
related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/384488/…
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
4
I don’t trust printing the size usingPRIu64
unless you cast the size touint64_t
. That said, you’d probably not get zero if it’s going wrong.
– Jonathan Leffler
16 hours ago
add a comment |
2
welcome to "stat information is different from seeking+telling information".
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
2
related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/384488/…
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
4
I don’t trust printing the size usingPRIu64
unless you cast the size touint64_t
. That said, you’d probably not get zero if it’s going wrong.
– Jonathan Leffler
16 hours ago
2
2
welcome to "stat information is different from seeking+telling information".
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
welcome to "stat information is different from seeking+telling information".
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
2
2
related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/384488/…
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/384488/…
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
4
4
I don’t trust printing the size using
PRIu64
unless you cast the size to uint64_t
. That said, you’d probably not get zero if it’s going wrong.– Jonathan Leffler
16 hours ago
I don’t trust printing the size using
PRIu64
unless you cast the size to uint64_t
. That said, you’d probably not get zero if it’s going wrong.– Jonathan Leffler
16 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
The devil is in the detail... For starters, there is the fundamental principle of Unix design: everything is a file, Nicely explained here.
The second is that the stat(2) call is giving you inode statistics stored on the filesystem about the device-special file which has a size of zero (think of it as lstat(2)
). If you have a block-device that has a filesystem on it you get information about it using statfs(2)
or getfsstat(2)
or statvfs(2)
in a filesystem/device independent way.
Dealing with special files (usually residing in /dev) has always been system specific and the manual pages reside in section 4. So if you want to manipulate a device directly you should read up on the specifics there. For instance, in Linux man 4 hd
will show you how to programmatically interact with IDE block devices. Whereas man 4 sd
will give you how to interact with scsi discs, etc.
Third thing, system calls are not supposed to be inconsistent in their functionality NOR their limitations.
Hope this has helped.
1
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
1
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
add a comment |
from this Unix Stack Exchange question:
Device files are not files per se. They're an I/O interface to use the devices in Unix-like operating systems. They use no space on disk, however, they still use an inode as reported by the stat command:
$ stat /dev/sda
File: /dev/sda
Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 block special file
Device: 6h/6d Inode: 14628 Links: 1 Device type: 8,0
That solves the stat
part.
the fact that you can seek in this "file" is not related. This isn't really a file, but you can open
it and read from it. You can seek to it too. It allows to read the disk at the lowest level, so seeking is necessary (that's why it works, and why wouldn't it return the new position like any "real" file?).
According to this other UnixSE answer, you can get the device size by reading this /dev/sda/size
file.
add a comment |
The length of a "device" such as /dev/sda
is not specifed by the POSIX struct stat
:
off_t st_size For regular files, the file size in bytes.
For symbolic links, the length in bytes of the
pathname contained in the symbolic link.
For a shared memory object, the length in bytes.
For a typed memory object, the length in bytes.
For other file types, the use of this field is
unspecified.
So POSIX has no requirement for the "size" of a disk device.
Linux likewise does not specify that stat()
shall return the size of a disk device:
st_size
This field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular
file
or a symbolic link) in bytes. The size of a symbolic link is
the length of the pathname it contains, without a terminating
null byte.
add a comment |
On Linux, the documented way to get the size of a raw disk device that you can open is with the BLKGETSIZE
ioctl. See the sd(4)
manpage.
Note that this returns the size of the device in sectors. You might think that, for size in bytes, you have to multiply by the value returned by the BLKSSZGET
ioctl, but if I'm reading the source code correctly, you actually have to multiply by 512 no matter what BLKSSZGET
returns.
add a comment |
lseek
is the backbone to C's fseek
, so it has its own semantics, matching fseek
- and quite detached from other areas of the Unix API. Provenance-wise, you'd expect lseek
to act like fseek
, and fseek
is a C-library interface that came to be without being Unix-specific.
stat
is Unix-specific, though, and does its own thing. It's a reasonable difference to expect if you think about provenance. Of course the problem is, then, that C APIs have very weak type models because C is one step short of making true type safety possible. As it is, you can be type-safe as long as it is possible to fit the value into intptr_t
- because then its real type can be a pointer type to a struct "tag", and those are the only "small" type-safe values in C - and even then, only if you enable -Werror
, i.e. turn all warnings into errors. Passing structs by value would have been nicer since there the type mismatches are hard errors, but initializing those is a pain:
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_path;
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_mode;
typedef FILE *file_handle;
file_path path = { "foo/bar" };
file_mode mode = { "w" };
file_handle fh = fopen(path, mode);
The path
and mode
arguments are type-safe, i.e. you couldn't pass a file_path
to something that expects a date_string
given as typedef struct { const char *val; } date_string
. And although modern compilers do a wicked good job of optimizing the code above and essentially stripping the type-safe overhead, the ABIs lag behind this. And thus C is only mildly type-safe. Only with -Werror
:)
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55164462%2fwhy-is-statst-size-0-for-devices-but-at-the-same-time-lseek-defines-the-device%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The devil is in the detail... For starters, there is the fundamental principle of Unix design: everything is a file, Nicely explained here.
The second is that the stat(2) call is giving you inode statistics stored on the filesystem about the device-special file which has a size of zero (think of it as lstat(2)
). If you have a block-device that has a filesystem on it you get information about it using statfs(2)
or getfsstat(2)
or statvfs(2)
in a filesystem/device independent way.
Dealing with special files (usually residing in /dev) has always been system specific and the manual pages reside in section 4. So if you want to manipulate a device directly you should read up on the specifics there. For instance, in Linux man 4 hd
will show you how to programmatically interact with IDE block devices. Whereas man 4 sd
will give you how to interact with scsi discs, etc.
Third thing, system calls are not supposed to be inconsistent in their functionality NOR their limitations.
Hope this has helped.
1
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
1
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
add a comment |
The devil is in the detail... For starters, there is the fundamental principle of Unix design: everything is a file, Nicely explained here.
The second is that the stat(2) call is giving you inode statistics stored on the filesystem about the device-special file which has a size of zero (think of it as lstat(2)
). If you have a block-device that has a filesystem on it you get information about it using statfs(2)
or getfsstat(2)
or statvfs(2)
in a filesystem/device independent way.
Dealing with special files (usually residing in /dev) has always been system specific and the manual pages reside in section 4. So if you want to manipulate a device directly you should read up on the specifics there. For instance, in Linux man 4 hd
will show you how to programmatically interact with IDE block devices. Whereas man 4 sd
will give you how to interact with scsi discs, etc.
Third thing, system calls are not supposed to be inconsistent in their functionality NOR their limitations.
Hope this has helped.
1
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
1
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
add a comment |
The devil is in the detail... For starters, there is the fundamental principle of Unix design: everything is a file, Nicely explained here.
The second is that the stat(2) call is giving you inode statistics stored on the filesystem about the device-special file which has a size of zero (think of it as lstat(2)
). If you have a block-device that has a filesystem on it you get information about it using statfs(2)
or getfsstat(2)
or statvfs(2)
in a filesystem/device independent way.
Dealing with special files (usually residing in /dev) has always been system specific and the manual pages reside in section 4. So if you want to manipulate a device directly you should read up on the specifics there. For instance, in Linux man 4 hd
will show you how to programmatically interact with IDE block devices. Whereas man 4 sd
will give you how to interact with scsi discs, etc.
Third thing, system calls are not supposed to be inconsistent in their functionality NOR their limitations.
Hope this has helped.
The devil is in the detail... For starters, there is the fundamental principle of Unix design: everything is a file, Nicely explained here.
The second is that the stat(2) call is giving you inode statistics stored on the filesystem about the device-special file which has a size of zero (think of it as lstat(2)
). If you have a block-device that has a filesystem on it you get information about it using statfs(2)
or getfsstat(2)
or statvfs(2)
in a filesystem/device independent way.
Dealing with special files (usually residing in /dev) has always been system specific and the manual pages reside in section 4. So if you want to manipulate a device directly you should read up on the specifics there. For instance, in Linux man 4 hd
will show you how to programmatically interact with IDE block devices. Whereas man 4 sd
will give you how to interact with scsi discs, etc.
Third thing, system calls are not supposed to be inconsistent in their functionality NOR their limitations.
Hope this has helped.
answered 15 hours ago
Ahmed MasudAhmed Masud
15.7k32537
15.7k32537
1
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
1
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
add a comment |
1
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
1
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
1
1
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
it has, and I have the impression that the 3 existing answers complete each other.
– Jean-François Fabre
15 hours ago
1
1
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-FrançoisFabre they seem to don't they :)
– Ahmed Masud
15 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
@Jean-François Fabre Masud All answers are correct and complete each other. But this think seems is key: stat works with inodes and it gives information from existing FS, not device file. But in other side device file has size, has start and has the end (in case of block device) therefore lseek works without problem and returns correct device size. As Ahmed told "everything is a file", therefore I had used stat in place where it cannot be used. "The devil is in the detail.." - accurately describes this situation. Thank you guys!
– Alexander Symonenko
14 hours ago
add a comment |
from this Unix Stack Exchange question:
Device files are not files per se. They're an I/O interface to use the devices in Unix-like operating systems. They use no space on disk, however, they still use an inode as reported by the stat command:
$ stat /dev/sda
File: /dev/sda
Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 block special file
Device: 6h/6d Inode: 14628 Links: 1 Device type: 8,0
That solves the stat
part.
the fact that you can seek in this "file" is not related. This isn't really a file, but you can open
it and read from it. You can seek to it too. It allows to read the disk at the lowest level, so seeking is necessary (that's why it works, and why wouldn't it return the new position like any "real" file?).
According to this other UnixSE answer, you can get the device size by reading this /dev/sda/size
file.
add a comment |
from this Unix Stack Exchange question:
Device files are not files per se. They're an I/O interface to use the devices in Unix-like operating systems. They use no space on disk, however, they still use an inode as reported by the stat command:
$ stat /dev/sda
File: /dev/sda
Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 block special file
Device: 6h/6d Inode: 14628 Links: 1 Device type: 8,0
That solves the stat
part.
the fact that you can seek in this "file" is not related. This isn't really a file, but you can open
it and read from it. You can seek to it too. It allows to read the disk at the lowest level, so seeking is necessary (that's why it works, and why wouldn't it return the new position like any "real" file?).
According to this other UnixSE answer, you can get the device size by reading this /dev/sda/size
file.
add a comment |
from this Unix Stack Exchange question:
Device files are not files per se. They're an I/O interface to use the devices in Unix-like operating systems. They use no space on disk, however, they still use an inode as reported by the stat command:
$ stat /dev/sda
File: /dev/sda
Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 block special file
Device: 6h/6d Inode: 14628 Links: 1 Device type: 8,0
That solves the stat
part.
the fact that you can seek in this "file" is not related. This isn't really a file, but you can open
it and read from it. You can seek to it too. It allows to read the disk at the lowest level, so seeking is necessary (that's why it works, and why wouldn't it return the new position like any "real" file?).
According to this other UnixSE answer, you can get the device size by reading this /dev/sda/size
file.
from this Unix Stack Exchange question:
Device files are not files per se. They're an I/O interface to use the devices in Unix-like operating systems. They use no space on disk, however, they still use an inode as reported by the stat command:
$ stat /dev/sda
File: /dev/sda
Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 block special file
Device: 6h/6d Inode: 14628 Links: 1 Device type: 8,0
That solves the stat
part.
the fact that you can seek in this "file" is not related. This isn't really a file, but you can open
it and read from it. You can seek to it too. It allows to read the disk at the lowest level, so seeking is necessary (that's why it works, and why wouldn't it return the new position like any "real" file?).
According to this other UnixSE answer, you can get the device size by reading this /dev/sda/size
file.
edited 15 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
Jean-François FabreJean-François Fabre
106k956115
106k956115
add a comment |
add a comment |
The length of a "device" such as /dev/sda
is not specifed by the POSIX struct stat
:
off_t st_size For regular files, the file size in bytes.
For symbolic links, the length in bytes of the
pathname contained in the symbolic link.
For a shared memory object, the length in bytes.
For a typed memory object, the length in bytes.
For other file types, the use of this field is
unspecified.
So POSIX has no requirement for the "size" of a disk device.
Linux likewise does not specify that stat()
shall return the size of a disk device:
st_size
This field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular
file
or a symbolic link) in bytes. The size of a symbolic link is
the length of the pathname it contains, without a terminating
null byte.
add a comment |
The length of a "device" such as /dev/sda
is not specifed by the POSIX struct stat
:
off_t st_size For regular files, the file size in bytes.
For symbolic links, the length in bytes of the
pathname contained in the symbolic link.
For a shared memory object, the length in bytes.
For a typed memory object, the length in bytes.
For other file types, the use of this field is
unspecified.
So POSIX has no requirement for the "size" of a disk device.
Linux likewise does not specify that stat()
shall return the size of a disk device:
st_size
This field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular
file
or a symbolic link) in bytes. The size of a symbolic link is
the length of the pathname it contains, without a terminating
null byte.
add a comment |
The length of a "device" such as /dev/sda
is not specifed by the POSIX struct stat
:
off_t st_size For regular files, the file size in bytes.
For symbolic links, the length in bytes of the
pathname contained in the symbolic link.
For a shared memory object, the length in bytes.
For a typed memory object, the length in bytes.
For other file types, the use of this field is
unspecified.
So POSIX has no requirement for the "size" of a disk device.
Linux likewise does not specify that stat()
shall return the size of a disk device:
st_size
This field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular
file
or a symbolic link) in bytes. The size of a symbolic link is
the length of the pathname it contains, without a terminating
null byte.
The length of a "device" such as /dev/sda
is not specifed by the POSIX struct stat
:
off_t st_size For regular files, the file size in bytes.
For symbolic links, the length in bytes of the
pathname contained in the symbolic link.
For a shared memory object, the length in bytes.
For a typed memory object, the length in bytes.
For other file types, the use of this field is
unspecified.
So POSIX has no requirement for the "size" of a disk device.
Linux likewise does not specify that stat()
shall return the size of a disk device:
st_size
This field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular
file
or a symbolic link) in bytes. The size of a symbolic link is
the length of the pathname it contains, without a terminating
null byte.
answered 16 hours ago
Andrew HenleAndrew Henle
20.4k31335
20.4k31335
add a comment |
add a comment |
On Linux, the documented way to get the size of a raw disk device that you can open is with the BLKGETSIZE
ioctl. See the sd(4)
manpage.
Note that this returns the size of the device in sectors. You might think that, for size in bytes, you have to multiply by the value returned by the BLKSSZGET
ioctl, but if I'm reading the source code correctly, you actually have to multiply by 512 no matter what BLKSSZGET
returns.
add a comment |
On Linux, the documented way to get the size of a raw disk device that you can open is with the BLKGETSIZE
ioctl. See the sd(4)
manpage.
Note that this returns the size of the device in sectors. You might think that, for size in bytes, you have to multiply by the value returned by the BLKSSZGET
ioctl, but if I'm reading the source code correctly, you actually have to multiply by 512 no matter what BLKSSZGET
returns.
add a comment |
On Linux, the documented way to get the size of a raw disk device that you can open is with the BLKGETSIZE
ioctl. See the sd(4)
manpage.
Note that this returns the size of the device in sectors. You might think that, for size in bytes, you have to multiply by the value returned by the BLKSSZGET
ioctl, but if I'm reading the source code correctly, you actually have to multiply by 512 no matter what BLKSSZGET
returns.
On Linux, the documented way to get the size of a raw disk device that you can open is with the BLKGETSIZE
ioctl. See the sd(4)
manpage.
Note that this returns the size of the device in sectors. You might think that, for size in bytes, you have to multiply by the value returned by the BLKSSZGET
ioctl, but if I'm reading the source code correctly, you actually have to multiply by 512 no matter what BLKSSZGET
returns.
answered 13 hours ago
zwolzwol
99k24172272
99k24172272
add a comment |
add a comment |
lseek
is the backbone to C's fseek
, so it has its own semantics, matching fseek
- and quite detached from other areas of the Unix API. Provenance-wise, you'd expect lseek
to act like fseek
, and fseek
is a C-library interface that came to be without being Unix-specific.
stat
is Unix-specific, though, and does its own thing. It's a reasonable difference to expect if you think about provenance. Of course the problem is, then, that C APIs have very weak type models because C is one step short of making true type safety possible. As it is, you can be type-safe as long as it is possible to fit the value into intptr_t
- because then its real type can be a pointer type to a struct "tag", and those are the only "small" type-safe values in C - and even then, only if you enable -Werror
, i.e. turn all warnings into errors. Passing structs by value would have been nicer since there the type mismatches are hard errors, but initializing those is a pain:
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_path;
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_mode;
typedef FILE *file_handle;
file_path path = { "foo/bar" };
file_mode mode = { "w" };
file_handle fh = fopen(path, mode);
The path
and mode
arguments are type-safe, i.e. you couldn't pass a file_path
to something that expects a date_string
given as typedef struct { const char *val; } date_string
. And although modern compilers do a wicked good job of optimizing the code above and essentially stripping the type-safe overhead, the ABIs lag behind this. And thus C is only mildly type-safe. Only with -Werror
:)
add a comment |
lseek
is the backbone to C's fseek
, so it has its own semantics, matching fseek
- and quite detached from other areas of the Unix API. Provenance-wise, you'd expect lseek
to act like fseek
, and fseek
is a C-library interface that came to be without being Unix-specific.
stat
is Unix-specific, though, and does its own thing. It's a reasonable difference to expect if you think about provenance. Of course the problem is, then, that C APIs have very weak type models because C is one step short of making true type safety possible. As it is, you can be type-safe as long as it is possible to fit the value into intptr_t
- because then its real type can be a pointer type to a struct "tag", and those are the only "small" type-safe values in C - and even then, only if you enable -Werror
, i.e. turn all warnings into errors. Passing structs by value would have been nicer since there the type mismatches are hard errors, but initializing those is a pain:
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_path;
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_mode;
typedef FILE *file_handle;
file_path path = { "foo/bar" };
file_mode mode = { "w" };
file_handle fh = fopen(path, mode);
The path
and mode
arguments are type-safe, i.e. you couldn't pass a file_path
to something that expects a date_string
given as typedef struct { const char *val; } date_string
. And although modern compilers do a wicked good job of optimizing the code above and essentially stripping the type-safe overhead, the ABIs lag behind this. And thus C is only mildly type-safe. Only with -Werror
:)
add a comment |
lseek
is the backbone to C's fseek
, so it has its own semantics, matching fseek
- and quite detached from other areas of the Unix API. Provenance-wise, you'd expect lseek
to act like fseek
, and fseek
is a C-library interface that came to be without being Unix-specific.
stat
is Unix-specific, though, and does its own thing. It's a reasonable difference to expect if you think about provenance. Of course the problem is, then, that C APIs have very weak type models because C is one step short of making true type safety possible. As it is, you can be type-safe as long as it is possible to fit the value into intptr_t
- because then its real type can be a pointer type to a struct "tag", and those are the only "small" type-safe values in C - and even then, only if you enable -Werror
, i.e. turn all warnings into errors. Passing structs by value would have been nicer since there the type mismatches are hard errors, but initializing those is a pain:
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_path;
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_mode;
typedef FILE *file_handle;
file_path path = { "foo/bar" };
file_mode mode = { "w" };
file_handle fh = fopen(path, mode);
The path
and mode
arguments are type-safe, i.e. you couldn't pass a file_path
to something that expects a date_string
given as typedef struct { const char *val; } date_string
. And although modern compilers do a wicked good job of optimizing the code above and essentially stripping the type-safe overhead, the ABIs lag behind this. And thus C is only mildly type-safe. Only with -Werror
:)
lseek
is the backbone to C's fseek
, so it has its own semantics, matching fseek
- and quite detached from other areas of the Unix API. Provenance-wise, you'd expect lseek
to act like fseek
, and fseek
is a C-library interface that came to be without being Unix-specific.
stat
is Unix-specific, though, and does its own thing. It's a reasonable difference to expect if you think about provenance. Of course the problem is, then, that C APIs have very weak type models because C is one step short of making true type safety possible. As it is, you can be type-safe as long as it is possible to fit the value into intptr_t
- because then its real type can be a pointer type to a struct "tag", and those are the only "small" type-safe values in C - and even then, only if you enable -Werror
, i.e. turn all warnings into errors. Passing structs by value would have been nicer since there the type mismatches are hard errors, but initializing those is a pain:
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_path;
typedef struct { const char *val; } file_mode;
typedef FILE *file_handle;
file_path path = { "foo/bar" };
file_mode mode = { "w" };
file_handle fh = fopen(path, mode);
The path
and mode
arguments are type-safe, i.e. you couldn't pass a file_path
to something that expects a date_string
given as typedef struct { const char *val; } date_string
. And although modern compilers do a wicked good job of optimizing the code above and essentially stripping the type-safe overhead, the ABIs lag behind this. And thus C is only mildly type-safe. Only with -Werror
:)
answered 10 hours ago
Kuba OberKuba Ober
70.6k983192
70.6k983192
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55164462%2fwhy-is-statst-size-0-for-devices-but-at-the-same-time-lseek-defines-the-device%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
welcome to "stat information is different from seeking+telling information".
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
2
related: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/384488/…
– Jean-François Fabre
16 hours ago
4
I don’t trust printing the size using
PRIu64
unless you cast the size touint64_t
. That said, you’d probably not get zero if it’s going wrong.– Jonathan Leffler
16 hours ago