John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27/08/2024 08:35, Li Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:20 PM John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/08/2024 04:22, Li Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> +linux-block, Jens
> >>
> >>> This change allows the loopback driver to handle larger block sizes
> >>
> >> larger than what? PAGE_SIZE?
> >
> > Yes,
>
> Please then explicitly mention that
Sure.
>
> > system should return EINVAL when the tested bsize is larger than PAGE_SIZE.
> > But due to the loop_reconfigure_limits() cast it to 'unsined short' that
> > never gets an expected error when testing invalid logical block size.>
> > That's why LTP/ioctl_loop06 failed on a system with 64k (ppc64le) pagesize
> > (since kernel-v6.11-rc1 with patches):
> >
> > 9423c653fe6110 ("loop: Don't bother validating blocksize")
> > fe3d508ba95bc6 ("block: Validate logical block size in blk_validate_limits()")
> >
> >
> >
>
> I feel that you should be adding a fixes tag, but it seems that those
> commits only expose the issue, and whatever introduced unsigned short
> usage was not right. Maybe you can just get this included for 6.11,
> where 9423c653fe6110 was introduced.
Ok, we can mention that two commits exposed the problem since v6.11-rc1.
I will send V2 including that. Thanks!
--
Regards,
Li Wang
