On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 08:19:43PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 20:15:28 +0530 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 05:18:16PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > > > @@ -979,9 +979,15 @@ loop_set_status_from_info(struct loop_device *lo, > > > > > > lo->lo_offset = info->lo_offset; > > > lo->lo_sizelimit = info->lo_sizelimit; > > > + lo->lo_flags = info->lo_flags; > > > + > > > + /* loff_t/int vars are assigned __u64/__u32 vars (respectively) */ > > > + if (lo->lo_offset < 0 || lo->lo_sizelimit < 0 || lo->lo_flags < 0) > > > + return -EOVERFLOW; > > > > Why would you check lo_flags? That really, really should be an unsigned > > type. > > I agree, but the loop_device struct has (see line 54 of loop.c): > int lo_flags; > > Thus, I checked for it, as we are not changing any types. But it's not an integer. It's a bitfield. Nobody checks lo_flags for "is it less than zero". That makes it very different from lo_offset.
