[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zfgqq4f4.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 20:27:27 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Phillip Lougher <phillip@...ashfs.org.uk>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
Sungjong Seo
<sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>,
"Darrick J.
Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Recent changes mean sb_min_blocksize() can now fail
Phillip Lougher <phillip@...ashfs.org.uk> writes:
> 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.
>
> 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/
Thanks. FATfs should have no issue.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists