Re: [PATCH] erofs: fix unbalanced buf->off handling in erofs_bread()

[Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>]

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:16:56PM +0800, binglei wang wrote:
> erofs_bread() locates the target folio with
> 
>  index = (buf->off + offset) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> 
> but computes the in-folio offset without taking buf->off into account:
> 
>  return buf->base + (offset & ~PAGE_MASK);
> 
> If buf->off is not page-aligned, the returned pointer misses the in-page
> component of buf->off, so callers end up fetching data from a wrong
> offset.
> 
> buf->off is set to sbi->dif0.fsoff in erofs_init_metabuf(), and fsoff can
> be specified via the "fsoffset=" mount option, which only requires
> block-size alignment. Therefore, on an image with a sub-page block size
> (e.g. 512 bytes), a non-page-aligned fsoff (e.g. 512) triggers the issue,
> since 512 is a multiple of the block size but not of PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> It can be reproduced by mounting an image that is placed at a
> non-page-aligned offset:
> 
>  mkfs.erofs -b512 -zlz4hc sub.erofs src/
>  # prepend 512 bytes of padding to the image
>  mount -t erofs -o loop,fsoffset=512 padded.erofs /mnt
> 
> which fails with
> 
>  erofs (device loop0): cannot find valid erofs superblock
> 
> because the on-disk superblock (at offset 1024 within the image, i.e.
> 1536 within the padded file) is read from a wrong in-folio offset. With
> this fixed, the very same image mounts successfully and its file contents
> match those read from the unpadded image.
> 
> Fix it by including buf->off in the in-folio offset calculation, so that
> it is consistent with the folio index calculation.
> 
> Fixes: c36ec00d7f67 ("erofs: add 'fsoffset' mount option to specify
> filesystem offset")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 6.16+
> Signed-off-by: Binglei Wang <l3b2w1@gmail.com>

As I said, I applied a modified version:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/aqOBLWQEkH7_3LSu@XiangdeMacBook-Pro.local

I think if you have some email client issue, you could loop the patch to
your own email, download it from your mailbox and try to apply locally
for self-testing first.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang