[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6af16095-eab0-9e99-6782-374705d545e4@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:56:47 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Jeremi Piotrowski <jeremi.piotrowski@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Phillip Lougher <phillip@...ashfs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Regression in squashfs mount option handling in v5.4
[adding Cc-s]
On 11/30/19 10:15 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on an embedded project which uses 'rauc' as an updater. rauc mounts
> a squashfs image using
>
> mount -t squashfs -o ro,loop,sizelimit=xxx squashfs.img /mnt
>
> On my system mount is busybox, and busybox does not know the sizelimit
> parameter, so it simply passes it on to the mount syscall. The syscall
> arguments end up being:
>
> mount("/dev/loop0", "dir", "squashfs", MS_RDONLY|MS_SILENT, "sizelimit=xxx")
>
> Until kernel 5.4 this worked, since 5.4 this returns EINVAL and dmesg contains
> the line "squashfs: Unknown parameter 'sizelimit'". I believe this has to do
> with the conversion of squashfs to the new mount api.
>
> This is an unfortunate regression, and it does not seem like this can be simply
> reverted. What is the suggested course of action?
>
> Please cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremi
>
--
~Randy
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists