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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250718151233.GS2672049@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:12:33 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>
Cc: or10n-cli <muhammad.ahmed.27@...mail.com>, 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 03:02:41PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> 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

...and please don't send the same email to us four times in a row.

--D