From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-124.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-124.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.124]) (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 D9E4F3F327C for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2026 07:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788681317; cv=none; b=IsnokVAbVfLe1vwsSGf5VWfNu8YlZyqfBBVfgg9VibfzGu/qsWArp1SSh1DtZHzB4wtKnpkuaRIDAElBWu2Fk70UVu6JbGDXG+p9Alm916QNIIIzFXR/voB1wZgEiPDhDUjqVhDpnN/DJEdi4cguTsf4BigUvsl8Na+wjEKGl1A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788681317; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6hRhD9s1Eb7w8aUoYQgcahtjpsTZZhQSlbsiHuBcnpc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=S3D8LO4QVRVbuxSTEmqwoOeMJSf3HDZCgh+HAP4mQ/xUdbxztE2p5F2tsc4XweF4NBgklNJu0HE1Q3SR5ZqFtEiqG6yrFxg9NwrVqpTuo6/T8SNbyMe7HAtphZPuov40LOFlR5UhveVS+b1lqoxBLME2piOKYzW1KIr0yGXurMQ= 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=WP5eKxvl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.124 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="WP5eKxvl" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1788681303; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=e7lUb3+CThFsrKCAjFzK0nWH7mvvwMgeJ0ZmcJZES8Q=; b=WP5eKxvlbFWRZkJLQIJK6pAg/NA1zY5r52ysr/hi+wXVYHGvc+Od/mqDsF+yI20sDm45hpdm5ob1eDtVEpRedtamdLz8yuLjoIjmACVVYVUp/1a4q0lnbSdwmPssPxRjkd0mN9gg3AH/2ukgYBGpvrjrHA+osW34b1RsYvoxP7o= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R171e4;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=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0XAMeP8u_1788681302; Received: from 30.134.112.244(mailfrom:joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0XAMeP8u_1788681302 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Sun, 06 Sep 2026 15:55:02 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2026 15:55:01 +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 v2 2/2] ocfs2: validate dl_blkno and dl_fs_generation of dir index leaf blocks To: Heming Zhao Cc: Andrew Morton , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260905142144.2869105-1-joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com> <20260905142144.2869105-2-joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com> From: Joseph Qi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/5/26 10:45 PM, Heming Zhao wrote: > On Sat, Sep 05, 2026 at 10:21:44PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: >> ocfs2_validate_dx_leaf() checks the checksum, the signature and the >> entry list counts, but it never checks dl_blkno or dl_fs_generation. >> The inode, extent block, xattr block, refcount block and dir index root >> validators all check the on-disk block number against bh->b_blocknr and >> the generation against the superblock, and both dir index leaf fields >> are documented as "Must match super block". >> >> Without the checks, a stale dir index leaf block left on the device from >> a previously formatted filesystem at the same physical block number can >> pass validation as long as its signature, entry counts and checksum >> match. Its index entries would then be used in the new filesystem >> context. >> >> Both fields are written unconditionally when a leaf block is formatted >> in ocfs2_dx_dir_format_cluster(), from the live superblock generation >> and the real block number, so a correctly formatted filesystem cannot >> trip the new checks. The leaf block number read back here comes from >> on-disk dir index root extent records. >> >> Reject dir index leaf blocks whose dl_blkno or dl_fs_generation does not >> match, like the dir index root validator does. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joseph Qi >> --- >> fs/ocfs2/dir.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dir.c b/fs/ocfs2/dir.c >> index 329680b46227..55c4a305a282 100644 >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dir.c >> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dir.c >> @@ -733,6 +733,18 @@ static int ocfs2_validate_dx_leaf(struct super_block *sb, >> return ocfs2_error(sb, "Dir Index Leaf has bad signature %.*s\n", >> 7, dx_leaf->dl_signature); >> >> + if (le64_to_cpu(dx_leaf->dl_blkno) != bh->b_blocknr) >> + return ocfs2_error(sb, >> + "Dir Index Leaf # %llu has an invalid dl_blkno of %llu\n", >> + (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, >> + (unsigned long long)le64_to_cpu(dx_leaf->dl_blkno)); > > The patch looks fine to me. > Reviewed-by: Heming Zhao > > Only question: Do we add the same check for dl_blkno in ocfs2_validate_dx_root()? > Yes，it's already added by: a08f83559463c ocfs2: validate suballoc slot and bit of xattr and dir index blocks Thanks, Joseph