From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-101.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-101.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.101]) (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 62EC2360ED0 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 01:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790559206; cv=none; b=lnzQ72hAWUmnTol7v8iZhyNxr5kPWM0/Vf8B/u4fSFWijDQ73bsQqnr5tx3lSJy6NpKMLnOPNkwki6+HUD/CW5vIahljewt96QO0HD9hPKHK5itLq720kljjkCNbzUg6zTV/0fP1JgWiOsxvo5o4BbHrzShnEW3COgTIQHtyav4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790559206; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SVQkkOjcFpzF23UJI4UvDp/q4m82LfGsuJgV4Dy3sK8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:Cc:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=sGYBLKcaN5c9R4WfBQO0litYbb/x55zyRbWB8BRJvNNu5UGTKbhjXPTbXjpcVZX+unuNr/w4iRdzLKZ2hIUnhEaaGitmSlB5UG+XiCVg5RgZddSbBf50V925hBVWR+IvmbVEV3km91E8gqMSSZsVx1H7oabVE6zAwnnHbocaTqQ= 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=VgGLTs5X; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.101 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="VgGLTs5X" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1790559194; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=RJAAXUqUBPmvFVa1V8NjamlXm++I27vg4KTloTXHO2Y=; b=VgGLTs5XCijwpZr0pmsYmU127USUujTL+IpycIvaoGpqt2bDqWtNw53XrtQ76Vx53Ttbd836D5QcpLDeQpr3rCsGx/7cpaqb4PpUTNT45U2wHJ1lF2fU+BrfN4KrL/ALohKly1zOLj64MoU4lPnqQ4X2ayhgiKYtsqA5s+WBhvk= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R121e4;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=8;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0XBgz1Bs_1790559192; Received: from 30.221.128.216(mailfrom:joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0XBgz1Bs_1790559192 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:33:13 +0800 Message-ID: <744a70bd-5455-421f-a37d-1c0a63f54b60@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:33:12 +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: Jiale Yao References: <20260926131848.3379842-1-yaojiale02@163.com> Cc: Andrew Morton , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , Gang He , Heming Zhao , ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Joseph Qi In-Reply-To: <20260926131848.3379842-1-yaojiale02@163.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 > + > /* > * here's how inodes get read from disk: > * iget5_locked -> find_actor -> OCFS2_FIND_ACTOR > @@ -1835,6 +1870,33 @@ static int ocfs2_filecheck_validate_inode_block(struct super_block *sb, > goto bail; > } > > + switch (ocfs2_check_extent_list(sb, di)) { > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OK: > + break; > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_ZERO_COUNT: > + mlog(ML_ERROR, > + "Filecheck: invalid dinode #%llu: extent list l_count is zero\n", > + (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr); > + rc = -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO; > + goto bail; > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OVERSIZED: > + mlog(ML_ERROR, > + "Filecheck: invalid dinode #%llu: extent list l_count %u exceeds max %u\n", > + (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, > + le16_to_cpu(di->id2.i_list.l_count), > + ocfs2_extent_recs_per_inode(sb)); > + rc = -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO; > + goto bail; > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_BAD_NEXT_FREE: > + mlog(ML_ERROR, > + "Filecheck: invalid dinode #%llu: extent list l_next_free_rec %u exceeds l_count %u\n", > + (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, > + le16_to_cpu(di->id2.i_list.l_next_free_rec), > + le16_to_cpu(di->id2.i_list.l_count)); > + rc = -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO; > + goto bail; > + } > + > if (ocfs2_dinode_has_size_without_clusters(sb, di)) { > if (S_ISDIR(le16_to_cpu(di->i_mode))) > mlog(ML_ERROR, > @@ -1893,6 +1955,15 @@ static int ocfs2_filecheck_repair_inode_block(struct super_block *sb, > return -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_VALIDFLAG; > } > > + switch (ocfs2_check_extent_list(sb, di)) { > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OK: > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_BAD_NEXT_FREE: > + break; > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_ZERO_COUNT: > + case OCFS2_EXTENT_LIST_OVERSIZED: > + return -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO; > + } > + > if (le64_to_cpu(di->i_blkno) != bh->b_blocknr) { > di->i_blkno = cpu_to_le64(bh->b_blocknr); > changed = 1;