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 3AEBE1A9B34; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 14:31:58 +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=1744122720; cv=none; b=QxVPKk/QKVWUilowI5fKvaQOIM2dGaiDT62uZFmjm2eRLxvImPlZNJw4gxv0so7L60KLiRGCzDwd2+ypReUh4/wv0JzCL+L04vvzR60qATvviSIIYvdK9pSHkZJ7A271g7fEAU6nz4oLhhrfyeW2lQnER7Shfxdpve5lV7lkg9I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744122720; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j4cd2D37hpE76RXAdqlaRaN8aQ0v29wGqTICClpRPv4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Nk5Kws8syyhmxGa0CmDvBDt1EB+FvkLg79LZgcAnNhBigUhlm1dwqeOeFF5zWsJZveL7Q81pD3Tz5gTORR8XaEqJ6WeO+tVY1DOc3L3NIPZcXeWtu2NigyCHJ5Mc5cXY6OPQXhs0Li1rkyNdWjmEkyskPvMxUyTa1v7MseP0zL8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=sUw48Dfz; 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="sUw48Dfz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80A0FC4CEE7; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 14:31:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744122718; bh=j4cd2D37hpE76RXAdqlaRaN8aQ0v29wGqTICClpRPv4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=sUw48DfzIvfgKXtGQex132eS1LkX3ponero0pb3bDwowIeyDVbz/r+Wadb9gU1puJ paNXmxhr4yHNfoQiZUmp6BG1q2K87wDzYUc44BBuygL2DLeFds4ZtmkiNBat9ko2hJ YEaiTBgG5g6CBf4T8j5oad/slkIOVHtJXG61wArBeAsD1Hj2ADggGoUEdPZOnClenv F9tGE1CEu5MajFasq5JRHcUhi1GFo8m5lMRSn0INLo+uQdnyeXA36aWjTK13IWDvvx tb/yCoyIFtiOL0+GJ5k6tRTthHCqK6ZE7kL18ltcQnWSwv7ALcaEncnwxHMefLtuIJ CZdi5xJqsRdYA== Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 07:31:57 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Phillip Lougher Cc: Jan Kara , Andreas Gruenbacher , Namjae Jeon , Sungjong Seo , OGAWA Hirofumi , Carlos Maiolino , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: Recent changes mean sb_min_blocksize() can now fail Message-ID: <20250408143157.GI6266@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <86290c9b-ba40-4ebd-96c1-d3a258abe9d4@squashfs.org.uk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86290c9b-ba40-4ebd-96c1-d3a258abe9d4@squashfs.org.uk> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 06:33:53AM +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote: > Hi, > > A recent (post 6.14) change to the kernel means sb_min_blocksize() can now fail, > and any filesystem which doesn't check the result may behave unexpectedly as a > result. This change has recently affected Squashfs, and checking the kernel code, > a number of other filesystems including isofs, gfs2, exfat, fat and xfs do not > check the result. This is a courtesy email to warn others of this change. Thanks for the heads up. xfs always passes in BBSIZE (aka 512) and doesn't use the bdev pagecache so I think it's unaffected by failures. --D > The following emails give the relevant details. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/2a13ea1c-08df-4807-83d4-241831b7a2ec@squashfs.org.uk/ > https://lore.kernel.org/all/129d4f39-6922-44e9-8b1c-6455ee564dda@squashfs.org.uk/ > > Regards > > Phillip >