From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D53791A9F99 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 07:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754984002; cv=none; b=A2LElo1neCD3RYAXg5HduTuYLEeBo00tOnZ4z6zExNNBGW3CZ8X9PrHkNfyw70fuVlcPJdOmmi/l/onJJVZt22yMSbtOo3TOldDDoYLzJVjHE2UgAbp3CpgzjX/Pb9V2IG86kp41cCNOwDOD99TVErCCU96cQbCHP8XaAyCkdT0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754984002; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SAA2fAGcShQNqlddo83E+u+laYhfOzVGkmNJu4nCjvM=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Message-Id:Date: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ScvmW6+Ka23yZhGAcb6sIWF6hsDp4gm1BE6inm53uQk9UJuYFHg/FxrEsu2HT4vZTpmeaCICQf0Vo7zdycF22zEEyrEdIhqcYpX6tgVlj827BlIykmWVqvIXWqK5t23DKIUqLAgJZteVv+8M/XdmLuGTpq5Bc3S8peiZA8Esyj0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EpwBMP+w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="EpwBMP+w" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E580AC4CEF1; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 07:33:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754984002; bh=SAA2fAGcShQNqlddo83E+u+laYhfOzVGkmNJu4nCjvM=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Date:From; b=EpwBMP+wAD14JSWO2SeoLikdyCFRIRaKTgKNJIPhiEG4NH13ebtxdpxohxiozG53c l7EHDvG6P6S6dYTpZ31XE/iKc5ivrjuzKhQXLGAeu3uIbFMjG4tI8JyFm22gDUNA/k beCvJpt0Pu51jY07wCFNz8hTz6ArXq0X6DVXeOy++LHMVzXPO4yEu8QNpEekW8KWRS bnHFtp4iVKuWB5hCNh0l4Fi41YOXGUarZqAgHBwqpk54DOiY6rnjJl5g3ROrvGHFpD AlZVOcENea4cfRpTDZGVnvuGMduzWw685YkkVWZJkiAvxROs4sR9AkHhurhj0jitA6 u4YYgs8HLKVrw== From: Carlos Maiolino To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: cen zhang , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20250723122011.3178474-1-hch@lst.de> References: <20250723122011.3178474-1-hch@lst.de> Subject: Re: fix XFS_IBULK_* vs XFS_IWALK_* confusion Message-Id: <175498400163.824422.7373728260565245975.b4-ty@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:33:21 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: b4 0.14.2 On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:19:43 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > this fixes a syzcall triggered assert due to the somewhat sloppy split > between the XFS_IBULK and XFS_IWALK flags. The first is the minimal > fix for the reported problem, and the second one cleans up the > interface to avoid problems like this in the future. > > Diffstat: > xfs_ioctl.c | 2 +- > xfs_itable.c | 8 ++------ > xfs_itable.h | 10 ++++------ > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > [...] Applied to for-next, thanks! [1/2] xfs: fully decouple XFS_IBULK* flags from XFS_IWALK* flags commit: d2845519b0723c5d5a0266cbf410495f9b8fd65c [2/2] xfs: remove XFS_IBULK_SAME_AG commit: 82efde9cf2e4ce25eac96a20e36eae7c338df1e0 Best regards, -- Carlos Maiolino