From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961C8C47257 for ; Fri, 1 May 2020 17:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D7D2063A for ; Fri, 1 May 2020 17:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729634AbgEAR0l (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2020 13:26:41 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:47955 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728972AbgEAR0h (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 May 2020 13:26:37 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 0A45C68C65; Fri, 1 May 2020 19:26:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 19:26:34 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ming Lei Cc: Martijn Coenen , axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, narayan@google.com, zezeozue@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, maco@google.com, bvanassche@acm.org, Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com, jaegeuk@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] loop: Factor out loop size validation Message-ID: <20200501172634.GA22792@lst.de> References: <20200429140341.13294-1-maco@android.com> <20200429140341.13294-2-maco@android.com> <20200429141229.GE700644@T590> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200429141229.GE700644@T590> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:12:29PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > +static int > > +loop_validate_size(loff_t size) > > +{ > > + if ((loff_t)(sector_t)size != size) > > + return -EFBIG; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > Now sector_t has been switched to u64 unconditionally, do we still need such > validation? Oops, completely forgot about that. Yes, we can just kill the checks.