On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
[off-list ref] 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