From: Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@gmail.com>
To: tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: validate extent entries before caching in ext4_find_extent()
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 19:30:36 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250929140037.354258-1-kartikey406@gmail.com> (raw)
Zhang Yi,
Thank you for pointing out the validation issue and your concerns about redundant checks. Let me provide a complete explanation of what's happening.
## Initial Problem
The reproducer triggers a BUG_ON in ext4_es_cache_extent() when opening a verity file on a corrupted ext4 filesystem. The issue occurs because the extent tree contains out-of-order extents that cause integer underflow when calculating hole sizes.
## Why ext4_ext_check_inode() Doesn't Catch This
You correctly asked why the existing validation in __ext4_iget() doesn't catch this corruption. After investigation with debug code, I found:
DEBUG: verity inode 15, inline=0, extents=1, test_inode_flag_inline_data=1
DEBUG: First time check inode 15 - flag=1, i_inline_off=0, has_inline=0
DEBUG: Second time check inode 15 - flag=1, i_inline_off=164, has_inline=1
DEBUG: Skipping validation for inode 15 (has inline data)
The corrupted filesystem has inode 15 with:
1. EXT4_INODE_INLINE_DATA flag set (test_inode_flag returns 1)
2. EXT4_INODE_VERITY flag set (it's a verity file)
3. i_inline_off containing value 164 (from corrupted on-disk data)
4. Out-of-order extents in the extent tree
## The Validation Bypass Mechanism
The validation code in __ext4_iget():
} else if (!ext4_has_inline_data(inode)) {
/* validate the block references in the inode */
The ext4_has_inline_data() function returns:
return ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_INLINE_DATA) &&
EXT4_I(inode)->i_inline_off;
Initially i_inline_off=0, so ext4_has_inline_data() returns false (1 && 0 = 0). But by the time validation check happens, i_inline_off=164 (loaded from corrupted on-disk data), making ext4_has_inline_data() return true (1 && 164 = 1), which skips validation.
## Proper Solution
You're correct that we should avoid redundant checks. The proper fix is to detect this invalid combination early in ext4_iget():
if (ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_VERITY) &&
ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_INLINE_DATA)) {
ext4_error_inode(inode, __func__, __LINE__, 0,
"inode has both verity and inline data flags");
ret = -EFSCORRUPTED;
goto bad_inode;
}
This addresses the root cause without adding overhead to the extent lookup path. I'll prepare a v2 patch implementing this approach instead of adding validation in ext4_find_extent().
Thank you for the thorough review that led to finding the actual root cause.
Best regards,
Deepanshu
next reply other threads:[~2025-09-29 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-29 14:00 Deepanshu Kartikey [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-09-29 15:45 Deepanshu Kartikey
2025-09-29 5:27 Deepanshu Kartikey
2025-09-29 12:07 ` Zhang Yi
2025-09-29 5:23 Deepanshu Kartikey
2025-09-28 10:09 Deepanshu Kartikey
2025-09-29 2:01 ` Zhang Yi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250929140037.354258-1-kartikey406@gmail.com \
--to=kartikey406@gmail.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®