linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] agheader: remove inappropriate use of -ENOSYS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <rypeauv2sg6iljvklmsgmir6g242btpqv6l7yidvmyenptdsf3@cnumxkzug2mp>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:02:41 +0200
From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>
To: or10n-cli <muhammad.ahmed.27@...mail.com>
Cc: djwong@...nel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] agheader: remove inappropriate use of -ENOSYS

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 05:43:24PM +0500, or10n-cli wrote:
>  From 8b4f1f86101f2bf47a90a56321259d32d7fe55eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: or10n-cli <muhammad.ahmed.27@...mail.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:24:10 +0500
> Subject: [PATCH] agheader: remove inappropriate use of -ENOSYS
> 
> The ENOSYS error code should only be used to indicate an invalid
> system call number. Its usage in this context is misleading and
> has been removed to align with kernel error code semantics.
> 
> Signed-off-by: my.user <my.mail@...mail.com>
> ---
>   fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c
> index 303374df44bd..743e0584b75d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,6 @@ xchk_superblock(
>           */
>          switch (error) {
>          case -EINVAL:   /* also -EWRONGFS */
> -       case -ENOSYS:
>          case -EFBIG:
>                  error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
>                  fallthrough;
> --

The comment right above what you changed says:

/*
 * The superblock verifier can return several different error codes
 * if it thinks the superblock doesn't look right.
.
.
*/

What you did is basically skipping superblock inode size validation,
now scrub will assume it's consistent even if it's corrupted.

Also. Please, go read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst