Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2024年9月20日周五 23:07写道： > > 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? Yeah... The patch was originally intended for overflow check and sourced from [1], differs from its description. After applying it to the latest kernel version, there were no warnings or errors, but I suspect there may be an issue with the git apply process. I'll fix it in the patch v2, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20240906033202.1252195-1-sunjunchao2870@xxxxxxxxx/ > Thanks, -- Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@xxxxxxxxx>
