From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170925102303.8288-1-agruenba@redhat.com>
References: <20170925102303.8288-1-agruenba@redhat.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:12:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyLfmdHWO_n7c6LojifAx4_89Et+0704_Vet1+CE8yhXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [SECOND RESEND] vfs: Return -ENXIO for negative SEEK_HOLE /
 SEEK_DATA offsets
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
<agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> could you please merge the following VFS fix, sent to Al etc. on August
> 30 and resent on September 14, with no reaction?

This fix seems wrong, or at least misleading.

We already error out for negative offsets in vfs_setpos(), except for
the special case of /proc/<pid>/mem, /dev/mem and /dev/kmem (which
have that FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET special case).

Sure, the error is different (-EINVAL), but that doesn't seem wrong.

So my gut feel is that if xfstest generic/448 cares about EINVAL vs
ENXIO, then that test is just garbage. Because let's face it, EINVAL
is the *normal* error return for negative offsets.

Am I missing something?

                 Linus