From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-99.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-99.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C969494832 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.99 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790589400; cv=none; b=NA6ahgcvzhDrljMKNXtosZqYjO28xrsVF9FTDq/BGDIKZfLnKh6Uoe2Se/CBD3NMdA4YJnVVAB4qj0EIKmlm/rqAtwE6PTY/h3s0VX9PpcEkpU3WdLOyS422tsFbNy/J9LD9tTSWVcAAoCrsX5StGxfq0vOylJMJOWtRfOyj0qQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790589400; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Mz0deYU1xOfYGQIBc4XUCNpGi4xiDI26J6pp/LNHrUA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ro5IUhx0KfDdrD5x6NKD+4nox85/2S3um8hlZnOdRylU149KBK9MWx2d7IUbzpf7DSqggyDLnH7WqrLkNlxjdcVE3reJu6+BIA/rqJQfLJU55d4ybG3gp9j1KqaI/zhuyy3g4riZs7bhYiQs8Ex66ek8Lfw9VdEU9WSn5dUaMQY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=QK3v+HLI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.99 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="QK3v+HLI" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1790589389; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=a8lNDEEGHD6z4GRB1sYGlOYweE4F493J28rMhTRvBIM=; b=QK3v+HLI/ZzyXTYx5BIytoI5qjqIJ8UNfiLYiWZG5n5pKOeCE9m3AKJdgQehsS1A64FQNgvKyFT40/LqUPaWjZwtN+OqPMiyHNjqddNp4SKAYLqvQjxce1+XCBoeFt8WBAaP5OsZH+eRUBz1AiroOU/6ifxgiiXeyiQ+XD7xghs= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R151e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam011083073210;MF=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=7;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0XBlwpe0_1790589387; Received: from 30.221.128.216(mailfrom:joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0XBlwpe0_1790589387 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 17:56:28 +0800 Message-ID: <08d85624-7da8-4d6e-9899-765d1af2e9f4@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 17:56:27 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: validate extent list in filecheck repair To: Heming Zhao , yaojiale02@163.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260926131848.3379842-1-yaojiale02@163.com> <744a70bd-5455-421f-a37d-1c0a63f54b60@linux.alibaba.com> From: Joseph Qi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/28/26 1:18 PM, Heming Zhao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 09:33:12AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: >> >> >> On 9/26/26 9:18 PM, Jiale Yao wrote: >>> ocfs2_filecheck_validate_inode_block() does not validate the embedded >>> extent list, while ocfs2_filecheck_repair_inode_block() only clamps >>> l_next_free_rec to l_count. The normal inode read path requires l_count >>> to be non-zero, limits it to the number of extent records that fit in the >>> inode, and requires l_next_free_rec not to exceed l_count. >>> >>> Without the same checks, filecheck can report SUCCESS while leaving an >>> invalid extent list on disk. A later read through the normal inode >>> validation path rejects the inode and makes the filesystem read-only. >>> >>> Add a shared helper for the filecheck paths to check these invariants. >>> The filecheck validator now rejects all three cases. The repair path >>> still clamps l_next_free_rec, but refuses to repair zero or oversized >>> l_count values. >>> >>> Fixes: d56a8f32e4c6 ("ocfs2: check/fix inode block for online file check") >> >> I'd like make this as a new ability rather than a bug fix. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiale Yao >>> --- >>> fs/ocfs2/inode.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c >>> index 180107a11046..57168ed02915 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c >>> @@ -249,6 +249,41 @@ static int ocfs2_dinode_has_extents(struct ocfs2_dinode *di) >>> return 1; >>> } >>> >>> +enum ocfs2_extent_list_status { >>> + OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OK, >>> + OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_ZERO_COUNT, >>> + OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OVERSIZED, >>> + OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_BAD_NEXT_FREE, >>> +}; >>> + >>> +static enum ocfs2_extent_list_status >>> +ocfs2_check_extent_list(struct super_block *sb, struct ocfs2_dinode *di) >>> +{ >>> + struct ocfs2_extent_list *el = &di->id2.i_list; >>> + u16 count; >>> + u16 next_free; >>> + >>> + if (!ocfs2_dinode_has_extents(di)) >>> + return OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OK; >>> + >>> + count = le16_to_cpu(el->l_count); >>> + next_free = le16_to_cpu(el->l_next_free_rec); >>> + if (count == 0) >>> + return OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_ZERO_COUNT; >>> + /* >>> + * The exact capacity depends on i_xattr_inline_size, another >>> + * unvalidated on-disk field. Inline xattrs only shrink the >>> + * list, so the no-xattr maximum is a safe upper bound that a >>> + * valid l_count never exceeds. >>> + */ >>> + if (count > ocfs2_extent_recs_per_inode(sb)) >>> + return OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OVERSIZED; >>> + if (next_free > count) >>> + return OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_BAD_NEXT_FREE; >>> + >>> + return OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OK; >>> +} >> >> This seems a duplicated check in ocfs2_validate_inode_block(). >> So I sugguest just extract the helper from it instead of duplicating >> a new one. >> >> BTW, seems we don't have to introduce enum ocfs2_extent_list_status, >> to make the checks simple. >> >> Thanks, >> Joseph > > Hi Joseph, > > The code logic is identical for ocfs2_validate_inode_block() and > ocfs2_filecheck_validate_inode_block(), except for their error handling style. > It seems possible to merge them into ocfs2_validate_inode_block() by adding > a bool check parameter to distinguish between the two behaviors, and then remove > ocfs2_filecheck_validate_inode_block(). > > The new code logic: replace ocfs2_error() with mlog(), and then "goto bail". > At the bail label, handle the two cases separately using "if (check)". > > i.e.: > //adding a new parameter "check" > int ocfs2_validate_inode_block(struct super_block *sb, > struct buffer_head *bh, bool check) > > > code change from: > ``` > int rc; > > ... ... > > if (!OCFS2_IS_VALID_DINODE(di)) > rc = ocfs2_error(sb, "Invalid dinode #%llu: signature = %.*s\n", > (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, 7, > di->i_signature); > goto bail; > } > ``` > > to > ``` > int rc = 0; > > ... ... > > if (!OCFS2_IS_VALID_DINODE(di)) > mlog(sb, "Invalid dinode #%llu: signature = %.*s\n", > (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, 7, > di->i_signature); > goto bail; > } > > ... ... > > return rc; > > bail: > if (check) { > rc = -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO; > } else { > rc = ocfs2_error(sb, "invalid dinode\n"); > } > > return rc; > } > ``` Ummm... This may make the code messy. I'd like only abtract the check condition, and let the return code and log message as in its own validation function. e.g. ocfs2_dinode_has_size_without_clusters(). Thanks, Joseph