On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 08:02:13AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Which isn't exactly the integer overflow case described here :) > > Hm? This patch is touching the error code you get for failing alignment > checks, not the one you get for failing check_add_overflow. EOVERFLOW > seems like an odd return code for unaligned arguments. Though you're > right that EINVAL is verrry vague. I misread the patch (or rather mostly read the description). Yes, -EOVERFLOW is rather odd here. And generic_copy_file_checks doesn't even have alignment checks, so the message is wrong as well. I'll wait for Jun what the intention was here - maybe the diff got misapplied and this was supposed to be applied to an overflow check that returns -EINVAL?
