From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpbgsg2.qq.com (smtpbgsg2.qq.com [54.254.200.128]) (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 D47063C1F43 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 07:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=54.254.200.128 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789371569; cv=none; b=ArQzLb1gzpE+59J+swUTFt5/KVYv88vnad4/rKm4qx/g7unlxdDUFPwg3YbHEnJPAksCkOt63YlCjVa41vxkccbDtgymqGk/4pA8ZGComOe6hPIStibZDkZxphIxOVZuDEFeW6PivoC0siQkMzJPrpBMpZgiysqf4B49Y3Uz3/U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789371569; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hhTBSl/9Bo13LwX9h54rEc/AN6RIkc4qOBlHl07onHQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=C4BBWMsrueRWhAVU05VUJyx70g9/yd+qQ95r1E4wNGd9mTjrp3/1FUzldhBbD3zXt6DOQQCDveoHPDqKUyc0EJ0xC2RkD9YZwEZ4zpnuhJrtKjwBDcGeJfZuAgOfmaLtpreydb11pDT3uB9ULOfmdWekNeXFTEUIVgV3SVi6kzA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=uniontech.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uniontech.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uniontech.com header.i=@uniontech.com header.b=SPhZOWpL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=54.254.200.128 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=uniontech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uniontech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uniontech.com header.i=@uniontech.com header.b="SPhZOWpL" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniontech.com; s=onoh2408; t=1789371531; bh=mWxUqOtwCSjuLuS6xJHKpKjKqiBU+1CWzzpioHUgQhY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version; b=SPhZOWpL97LMsih3nCJUz3dZVSHAJ/tZ8fYwXSNEN7pvQFHZQbn4Tc7nIuMnSgsDz HZbgNf5xCtSypCNyDYryrNquaZsXmQz/BRD7GwoPqSWeETh1b2vj4Lcxx3E1W5ccR2 RIFzDuVB6XE1Eq2SCNVPE+bWK0X/3r/6yK/h96Vg= X-QQ-mid: esmtpsz11t1789371516t130e1278 X-QQ-Originating-IP: 3L0MRMcF60zrouqUqgvQQ1D27LcswZVtj692IhPKdIE= Received: from uniontech.com ( [113.57.152.160]) by bizesmtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 15:38:28 +0800 (CST) X-QQ-SSF: 0000000000000000000000000000000 X-QQ-GoodBg: 1 X-BIZMAIL-ID: 2539614377018134341 EX-QQ-RecipientCnt: 5 From: Yichong Chen To: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Cc: chenyichong@uniontech.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix the logical block counter overflow in indirect migration Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 15:38:22 +0800 Message-Id: <20260914073822.3440595-1-chenyichong@uniontech.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 In-Reply-To: <20260914071853.ED58F1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> References: <20260914071853.ED58F1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520 Feedback-ID: esmtpsz:uniontech.com:qybglogicsvrgz:qybglogicsvrgz3a-0 X-QQ-XMAILINFO: ODmRr9XAsEUIYFZc+vaV9Of8LQ21Trln+SyOD1+2Vb0BivNbEGEwgjjR UbdEW1zpLDDyb1z1LqatmnBr+0OY6qZZvT/53g79hyyCSEQOrXIE89YyatmA7njxmmuITfz +gHQupvKP28/5dIJidea8lpCrC9nntpu24CMrdNWjuhgZ58g4XjF+Hm2u/9RuvhvuzN8OYw F77b+nBSIWMVpb4ZQ/HSrBdfTx6I1D6BYqPpB1AjbadWzFKGBEojV6ELnDHD5Bdqy6/HBfo 6Cy3twlUA8C6zH3AT04UdH0eltZtRoh3WxVSDECDvNqQlMEEAyonqQJRaJO7lUhWXGf64rG f6qohclilFi0vcm4fXtGVEbbKDM4RmxHOsbtN3NmfI9D86MxLtHfTo2T5UiveOFx3Qbg5zV n0VoDoo9Z3BbeiT+yAk0dvlmk7yxiVEWPHJCcUm2M1DSc0EekxBH1ktJjLQYQKQfaZIRE0N eQI6xyesvDztoQpujAteCSYUH8feLbr3CemhhOcrv3eizMr81AZ28erhiaBbIfaRfNSRs6I 3YkZ2QZamm/lbd2TWkeHz1UdZUVUNRmMwfGPiiUUFLQOgL7pDYY7pakoQIflW3BUAasN0OS CwnfSUoDJzKisdpj1nVn+EmlX5sS4CD/NmsPKOt0wIknIcOq6qs3UpzdgeMLYECgDzhn9T4 C6vof1n36zi9Md7wafQ60xNpeKDDsSlUVqh/cJr+k62AJEyDEHwnBLr2xS9sJSmYE88whGi bTNzxVSoRa4pvymLRR7ldMK7mDSfWEOQ9dqLFWNXe+y4xfvjyB/hNvckqeUORBH7+gKowqq OQ9WyEfqrl0IdhdtGhv338mYD1qKpWUUzwzWDt4ZOld7VSBHWjgcTKAZI/Vk378Axkdrl/J cHvPn+pqFeyNeaOWfj9ttZwntCsaRHOeZgv/K4bZ2/ZY3atTTLg3gj+f3FuVYF9XTWIKaYb WvuqbZw03x7WcUfzxQ87dCAfrAFii37/ua/tYrLj0zfyjRD77vfOYYBC2wf0knF7lYbhxZH JD+hbJULF6w1iQC88jAZHzrmtuntCEwEBPvvIdabKO9SSefjy/19qoNy0f/WU= X-QQ-XMRINFO: MSVp+SPm3vtSI1QTLgDHQqIV1w2oNKDqfg== X-QQ-RECHKSPAM: 0 Hi, Thanks for the review. The EXT_MAX_BLOCKS point is valid. An extent may not cover that block, because ext4_valid_extent() rejects a wrapping ee_block + ee_len, so ext4_iget() would drop the migrated inode as corrupt. The bound has to be >= EXT_MAX_BLOCKS, not > (ext4_lblk_t)-1. I will send a v2 with that fixed. Thanks, Yichong