From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-177.mta0.migadu.com (out-177.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.177]) (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 3B9AC18787A for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 22:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774735919; cv=none; b=qrfVmus8Q5LerD/PrMWgpu707uiUccGgyuAFLw6awZfTDKOH1Mdds+BhWFSKL35v8kCKaERc3qZlznaqz5kozLR34atWD+E/FhbwyJkR4kTuKHsAUG7UgNPku9DV6VMWcrTb2k8A76nXnoX0oZuGS/OIcpKECQZz2Md7roEjwh0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774735919; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0MdlG2mz45bRM9Xj6kyx8qg0fPfcxBFvB/6XjAE1ggg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=k0nl2yYdDSaectt5Iz9fflV7yTBTYOu5LSyQwmoIU81OG8LrQxjCV/gE9rDqED2smY+8oK4IQK/M0FUj2YR944y4VpW15MTmBWPYlX3BB8d/qcaC7spEtCD/WIQotvH5da6bHuPXy/7RVO46xidOi4dGnuw9RDuwQNbiRKIRawI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=gvernon.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gvernon.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gvernon.com header.i=@gvernon.com header.b=Koxr6Zfg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=gvernon.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gvernon.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gvernon.com header.i=@gvernon.com header.b="Koxr6Zfg" Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 22:11:54 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gvernon.com; s=key1; t=1774735914; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0MdlG2mz45bRM9Xj6kyx8qg0fPfcxBFvB/6XjAE1ggg=; b=Koxr6Zfg/l1KoNsJLmKKSwJYIj/WFY7TyyVgjynSwZ7gS+oEdDNkpHGaw5iRUiRU/2QGlq MGl56UbNkAy4VV4OihiZBGEgXYzel7iy2u0Ob302EfM2at1nX1UmenK+wzWfPRiTE5L+z/ QBS2uUG7xnpjt1HLU8YQVuMk1/qMNcnIdPks9m1IWfjMbnbrhm+bqsTo7qV4wYs2zs7sd6 uzgDwg5UoUXypEHeJ0kGpuYnc/7ey2A4zsWKeAtPazqv0r968pP55KX3iSaUmcIk2lXOId tJmiCODg45iaegE7fwUzwAX+e+aoVSgixb+YhoVJTC8g7e/M+ptOSiRCZuWaEA== X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: George Anthony Vernon To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Jan Kara , Leo Stone , Christian Brauner , Viacheslav Dubeyko , John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , Yangtao Li , linux-fsdevel , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] hfs: update sanity check of the root record Message-ID: References: <21e7ebfd-d35d-4682-b553-6996cc8c3a8e@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21e7ebfd-d35d-4682-b553-6996cc8c3a8e@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 04:12:07PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > George Anthony Vernon is trying to fix this bug without my patch > ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20260311211309.27856-1-contact@gvernon.com ). > But it was proven that George's patch cannot fix this bug. Therefore, > I believe that we came to a conclusion that applying my patch is > the way to go. We can apply George's patch as a further improvement. > But unfortunately Viacheslav Dubeyko (the maintainer of HFS) is not > responding. Therefore, I'm sending this patch to more developers who > might accept this patch, instead of waiting for Viacheslav. Thanks for the CC. Slava (Viacheslav) got in contact with me directly on Tuesday 24th to say he missed some emails and acknowledged not being completely correct about the thread record logic which we were talking about. He indicated he would take a look at the next patch version when he received it. I will follow this thread with interest. In the meantime I will follow up my patch with a new version, thanks for your review of it. Your patch validates the superblock lookup, however my patch which you linked validates reserved CNIDs retrieved from a bad cat record on disk, which is also a reachable logical path which hits the BUG() on writeback. I can consistently reproduce that BUG() with your patch applied. Both patches are therefore necessary. Hope this helps, George