From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej2-f42.google.com (mail-ej2-f42.google.com [74.125.228.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E99B94DE72B for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 14:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.228.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790606011; cv=none; b=MibzGVJ1S3cvvzqhwqZNO/if4VNW8ew9cj0biXmT25j832TELfK9NNd0fknVuBxfTOFrqjoOJbMo7S4GE835n9CllhY96wOCFxKBrIiDCMzDDOydjemddE6YAE8cOqQ/l6C7u0gTSEe+Dq7DVpusHZc1Y6SlvfEeCk6em8cDgn4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790606011; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0uTsabC5p675gdS8dTrQduwvANnTEuolN/gyOQnRHEw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Jzex08oKepl3OOQRqgZSanMkZSr2z52zJP+6K7Q1FRdlOsp5jOzcyK0FcroIPjGMyViqMhUxXHlv2ltiBFtX52SPVriOiugow9kuGzMvJDCmJ+i8io8ZHTAzh4Ahq/fX+3Qh8269uxPigD6LJWwPDveGdmpAiKjlJvdvek4Hp2s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=PqoOOIzN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.228.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="PqoOOIzN" Received: by mail-ej2-f42.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c2c89ebe1b7so14307166b.1 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1790605995; x=1791210795; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=SOYgIQeEiNoXJRbq0xUoG6vGFA32ScMPWVC4gTZudqg=; b=PqoOOIzNY64q4aK7To8tvfglDKTGmotJ08ck63ZjJ8TOYEuQeiu4vg9GnaThgGPrx2 jvouR+VZNXT+PcUuQDpITStUqMsa0l/K47Eut2DjXhz9HBOabqDu0OjVCMaIm9PXS7PH FcAMaBzJdadD3eaD8dosr9tOoQPmXnNSjiwuSelXzWSwDib66rX87SWGcSt9vPOKkxgP RCXbPlQ1rqEhWttWEJx8oNhYBfEJhanAQaYnuemOe3wE1WXtujgXPQIIDH7tM6yT9++B yEtPK4X/hZWDHqXKKABZnBz44NWaqsF1KrSzF0yOmqkjPyazPGoIuOzFZ6sDADyiM/7q MNUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790605995; x=1791210795; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=SOYgIQeEiNoXJRbq0xUoG6vGFA32ScMPWVC4gTZudqg=; b=UgKI9+X/EazWiRQiaMjiy87mxhxI2z35acHP+arq43vf/7mp0ELNaua0YF6aeUAnl4 rSTT0YS9VMQW+7lWFW2e85JOAj+dgHb0lKIiTKD0Owe5WZVNbWHNV2JHInzTfGMNSVPk J0FSL7WvR1LgYerRch/awILKwChvtbuIddah3u5nLi5F4KQWzJzSpr/gijHUfX6XS/d6 VpO0QihiwjfoXFWkiHm285gPiYMky9aPa/cZJSI5jkKry1RX2KR6bR8tw6tlLkaCuqMb 7xOVU2fduKaOct9wVaYjNK6YOObMDh3ARovCiRW9D+cyRfpZXHQBw4h4seuae5KXd+Gw LDow== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBwNniCpPAO6+vWgFjtYH9fmJQ7bRVYEmG3GPJilziQ6/d61OZVIYcmeZ043unI30wSrl/PqOPqFyMa6Hg==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++nypB8yyWVA1L4qbAxDr9svv0iz6LdHVcpdzHXak5UeMhommX7D 0C+Unumn+MlncbZs2+PGiogELzJOJKoJQNSnGDTe86yvnsxUt6SaLnjyulJr8IuSEro= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2+G4z8URSOXmThaqtrLmfjZk/uZd3tNh5hWAZLdfOQ+1JmCeVxKyyLPXwfACb nCEbYQ8VJk7jHE+x4/Ll6WF8ou8ohQTWM31vBEhGmeEFcLmhZtH7Hr70zOuo9qVW6e9tnxoVLUf JzLTJJkRWTMRQrOBz88OLJWCMC3qMU0LPqkNjD2kcSlLFOVA1jelIGN3X1hiUJ2VbNqxtP0wJeD YqlHlBOjIiEa/RTGvSeSDSaXLYsw3Apqxla75ga1DkZWZwRh7JrZXGW+qCuAdQXX4UDlvjx/M1/ s9sIKrVaWxyUhksgoDMlmrKpoj8Dt8NgNWXF4Gw5JQuUzwfXBA0qLIx7ONlhgLMvQM3MYpe0ec+ uyu3CbZbPGq0vYPgEMU3vX69MzTkeaPH1oONFNkWwUvjI1Xw6H4sG6kmzoLL7UkiMNPKRQ56wjL iKRJZfMkw5yhyO6JCVEqsZ5OfPct2f+s1nFLmU6fa8CrquvXp3hdVSLEH0zPTh2DBkIKFx X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3f17:b0:c16:604a:b2bd with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c2ac234ac2cmr1156189366b.3.1790605995252; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 07:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([202.127.77.110]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 41be03b00d2f7-cc78794f224sm4832371a12.25.2026.09.28.07.33.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 28 Sep 2026 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 22:33:11 +0800 From: Heming Zhao To: Joseph Qi Cc: yaojiale02@163.com, Andrew Morton , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: validate extent list in filecheck repair Message-ID: References: <20260926131848.3379842-1-yaojiale02@163.com> <744a70bd-5455-421f-a37d-1c0a63f54b60@linux.alibaba.com> <08d85624-7da8-4d6e-9899-765d1af2e9f4@linux.alibaba.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <08d85624-7da8-4d6e-9899-765d1af2e9f4@linux.alibaba.com> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 05:56:27PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > > > On 9/28/26 1:18 PM, Heming Zhao wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 09:33:12AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > >> > >> > >> 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 > > > > Hi Joseph, > > > > The code logic is identical for ocfs2_validate_inode_block() and > > ocfs2_filecheck_validate_inode_block(), except for their error handling style. > > It seems possible to merge them into ocfs2_validate_inode_block() by adding > > a bool check parameter to distinguish between the two behaviors, and then remove > > ocfs2_filecheck_validate_inode_block(). > > > > The new code logic: replace ocfs2_error() with mlog(), and then "goto bail". > > At the bail label, handle the two cases separately using "if (check)". > > > > i.e.: > > //adding a new parameter "check" > > int ocfs2_validate_inode_block(struct super_block *sb, > > struct buffer_head *bh, bool check) > > > > > > code change from: > > ``` > > int rc; > > > > ... ... > > > > if (!OCFS2_IS_VALID_DINODE(di)) > > rc = ocfs2_error(sb, "Invalid dinode #%llu: signature = %.*s\n", > > (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, 7, > > di->i_signature); > > goto bail; > > } > > ``` > > > > to > > ``` > > int rc = 0; > > > > ... ... > > > > if (!OCFS2_IS_VALID_DINODE(di)) > > mlog(sb, "Invalid dinode #%llu: signature = %.*s\n", > > (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr, 7, > > di->i_signature); > > goto bail; > > } > > > > ... ... > > > > return rc; > > > > bail: > > if (check) { > > rc = -OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO; > > } else { > > rc = ocfs2_error(sb, "invalid dinode\n"); > > } > > > > return rc; > > } > > ``` > > Ummm... This may make the code messy. > I'd like only abtract the check condition, and let the return code and > log message as in its own validation function. > e.g. ocfs2_dinode_has_size_without_clusters(). > > Thanks, > Joseph Got it and agreed. - Heming