From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=113.46.200.227 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793671582; b=FsGz2wZTLI4oI8WI1Gi70ILdEDpG37L89yG0bpGuGwR73xcu5g4kxtlm9+cMjfYWHneq drka9r3UJtQWOjd1co/cDlaOBsLRAaSJmYpDIbBUW8GE3Y6gByfDQyIg7VbMauMy3kx27 q/3IB6muilYxWt4/1dxeRjra0YBdZ8uTqqJkY/fnVTalGVIj5jM8q38nrwN7l3qwpL3iz 8svQVoHNma+Gyk55vKJuJWhTSppy7XzS2G85Ge585vUZr2ORSErfONk6xV6vezk8mKXdN +X/9TSbDXa3axMm/uM5BhQMFZ2FHJI9l40h7ESMPp/eck2uZwTHbqb8nWSiHSVo0ULQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793671582; h=DMARC-Filter:dkim-signature:Received:Received:Received:Subject:To:CC: References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Originating-IP: X-ClientProxiedBy; bh=9eQOyo+IfoykMUCBNu9pw763kypSfDmJgqjlvxDApw8=; b=pyWFPH+UHyLFSB8ontOe+n1GNOzztUFlUpXUeO+enK6b/zahiF0jaOO4UvvAsK1BhWB4 6xmKUUKRJNxPRuC+UcI5qA4WoEBTXm4Qwq0cFkvGaPb0gdbtVk5KMAwsLMToAnHOAe74m 0khMQejGf1TsJxV77F31EXrpMQMgwFAfg/wye70o2LJjSwlvAuIoOyYy9vRzWEimqDsPk LN+Zk8vgs79fsbWGw6A0YzCJuddn09a4cQ4wjZ6shiOqxpxjqul3AL66A0wNYk55uD0V+ FadSrZnzqXX3Q8fyGR6g+VDxIW1oqpWA8vWxzbTI5qM9IkwUaE+6RP4GnupThcwILVQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=113.46.200.227 Received: from canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.227]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72719606D806; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 02:06:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 72719606D806 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=9eQOyo+IfoykMUCBNu9pw763kypSfDmJgqjlvxDApw8=; b=MOlk8Ovrnv9M2b6BANy190osKUGXiWsJJOzVOm0oroqq5uoDB3X7pN20VxheZXXwz3OPMe8wQ SQRfOVI4ocTcN3t/FvzX2c/v4m7/cpY47sU+DM1IEusYB1zjKs9Mj5+6jm/MbOGajjsp1YJh+d0 DGKJLq2F4tcCTj/RY7FUYbk= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.163]) by canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4jJX4663p8znV89; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 10:06:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from whupemo200011.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.152.185.179]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DF674048B; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 10:06:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.46] (10.174.178.46) by whupemo200011.china.huawei.com (7.152.185.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.45; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 10:06:13 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ubifs: reject master nodes claiming a too small inode number To: , , CC: , References: <20261102214935612btR10gHRJy3yrzqeLcnE9@zte.com.cn> From: Zhihao Cheng Message-ID: <6ff71dd8-84e0-dcef-01c7-1bb7e341ccff@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 10:06:12 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20261102214935612btR10gHRJy3yrzqeLcnE9@zte.com.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.68) To whupemo200011.china.huawei.com (7.152.185.179) 在 2026/11/2 21:49, shao.mingyin@zte.com.cn 写道: > validate_master() only rejects highest_inum values above > INUM_WATERMARK. A master node whose value is below UBIFS_FIRST_INO is > accepted, and ubifs_new_inode() then allocates inode numbers starting > from that value, i.e. from the range reserved for special inodes. With > highest_inum = 0 the very first new inode gets number 1, which is > UBIFS_ROOT_INO and is already used by the root inode, so two inodes end > up with the same number and the index is corrupted. > > Check the lower bound as well. > > Fixes: 1e51764a3c2a ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Shao Mingyin > --- > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/master.c b/fs/ubifs/master.c > index a148760fa49e..8a1ba81c10bb 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/master.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/master.c > @@ -191,6 +191,16 @@ static int validate_master(const struct ubifs_info *c) > goto out; > } > > + /* > + * Inode numbers below UBIFS_FIRST_INO are reserved. If the master > + * node claims a smaller value, newly created inodes would reuse the > + * root inode number or another reserved one. > + */ > + if (c->highest_inum < UBIFS_FIRST_INO) { > + err = 24; > + goto out; > + } > + This check could be merged into previous check: f (c->highest_inum >= INUM_WATERMARK) > if (c->lhead_lnum < UBIFS_LOG_LNUM || > c->lhead_lnum >= UBIFS_LOG_LNUM + c->log_lebs || > c->lhead_offs < 0 || c->lhead_offs >= c->leb_size || > . >