On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
<agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> could you please merge the following VFS fix, sent to Al etc. on August
> 30 and resent on September 14, with no reaction?
This fix seems wrong, or at least misleading.
We already error out for negative offsets in vfs_setpos(), except for
the special case of /proc/<pid>/mem, /dev/mem and /dev/kmem (which
have that FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET special case).
Sure, the error is different (-EINVAL), but that doesn't seem wrong.
So my gut feel is that if xfstest generic/448 cares about EINVAL vs
ENXIO, then that test is just garbage. Because let's face it, EINVAL
is the *normal* error return for negative offsets.
Am I missing something?
Linus