From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=113.46.200.224 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793681425; b=2BYaxiCtFgHSEtFy3lytPT2Iaf/nuLXq1xK13CGcs8q+dJbjLhPMlgCQHhCKHbIqqqCM PjOYfiuzvvzk9tLwZAQI/WEFO3zKIgWnkORefMZjCsV9fEj513xsuP84eVQFNaoXTnM28 k0WWybyk6ZyBGhGckX8iDWIjZO0vBc4U3lZWJyV2Cipd0Urqu2iBhr3v8QhnPvTxSBJCO 9QLKPlmXL5t180CstA8Xb1FtNFRya2bTSxincxAgCUK99u7FQ+MF9v7TXBYeM1U/4BSXe Afp94ktMR411bYrJRVxrTuo++qhJjLol+HGsnvf7B4qIECR3fYvNNdZCf1heX3TXFgA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793681425; 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=tKYkGRJueQ4xHnKwkjwzEUwQGmQwSgxAdVrQiSPCVM0=; b=E6NAjMixqfFTzWW2u3pH4O13ACWznSIYwQEL5Z+lclVTXRI3Z928IdixI+16+xT9creC Y7TqwmpcnCugyr5ssgUFnMgNlCWysXEkxYM4pi+jzfcUpnnyZ11XyMGsd3WKMkneU+Esu +ylQnaQt228CbxFUiKFLfVfKpT7bdMS4SmNXO4XkNJGanwG4DT+mYft/mG+OTNucOQbef R2lRYBIeEu1rvdaSnxKkqm1+RiEpUEmiYk3lZDQyqTIJyqMvHsp4OKrb8D6fritRUx+tQ iyWpwuyQQvQFIBD1vWjSYc/Z2IfQoS4diOGwmftEfmK1eSB7UCMh/V4Rr9lHwjfQ1iQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dkim header.b=12COAAUg; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=113.46.200.224 Received: from canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.224]) (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 B5354606A324 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 04:50:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org B5354606A324 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 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dkim header.b=12COAAUg dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=tKYkGRJueQ4xHnKwkjwzEUwQGmQwSgxAdVrQiSPCVM0=; b=12COAAUgRMSucGDaRdd9nEFO2NcTHpF5KyMlJi0iyNbGUdDBgOIlaA4H62rB1QpDjcR/0O6J0 FCB/aCxNjZUW3QzF9tjs8Zk17bI/TSawtH6KqJ7qfEqwtJc0SDMyoE6gs3BatGavL3lSTTOX83S JevDnaKi2SQaddDID29g7Os= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.127]) by canpmsgout09.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4jJbjD4M4mz1cyqq; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 12:50:08 +0800 (CST) Received: from whupemo200011.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.152.185.179]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0024240574; Tue, 3 Nov 2026 12:50:19 +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 12:50:17 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ubifs: reject master nodes claiming a too small inode number To: CC: , , References: <20261103123104319tX_sQcNY56466a6yZeEgg@zte.com.cn> From: Zhihao Cheng Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 12:50:16 +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: <20261103123104319tX_sQcNY56466a6yZeEgg@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 2026/11/3 12:31, shao.mingyin@zte.com.cn 写道: >> This check could be merged into previous check: >> f (c->highest_inum >= INUM_WATERMARK) > > Agreed, the two bounds belong in one test: > > if (c->highest_inum >= INUM_WATERMARK || > c->highest_inum < UBIFS_FIRST_INO) > This looks fine, there are many places return the same err code correponding several reasons, the err code help user to identify which field is incorrect, then ubifs_dump_node() will show all details. > One side effect: a too small highest_inum then reports error 3 instead of > the separate code 24. If you would rather keep the two ranges apart in > the log, I can leave the lower bound as its own check. > > Thanks, > Shao > . >