Re: [PATCH v2] fs/hfs: fix s_fs_info leak on setup_bdev_super() failure

Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa
2026-01-19T20:34:59Z

On 1/19/26 7:27 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 20:03 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
>> On 1/19/26 6:48 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2026-01-17 at 19:51 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/25 8:24 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2025-11-29 at 13:48 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/27/25 9:19 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <skipped>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I can see, the situation is improving with the patches. I can say that
>>>>>>> patches have been tested and I am ready to pick up the patches into HFS/HFS+
>>>>>>> tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mehdi, should I expect the formal patches from you? Or should I take the patches
>>>>>>> as it is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can send them from my part. Should I add signed-off-by tag at the end
>>>>>> appended to them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are OK with the current commit message, then I can simply add your
>>>>> signed-off-by tag on my side. If you would like to polish the commit message
>>>>> somehow, then I can wait the patches from you. So, what is your decision?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I want to give an apologies for the delayed/none reply about the
>>>>>> crash of xfstests on my part. I went back testing them 3 days earlier
>>>>>> and they started showing different results again and then I have broken
>>>>>> my finger....Which caused me to have much slower progress.I'm still
>>>>>> working on getting the same crashes as I did before where I get them
>>>>>> when running any test.Because I ran quick tests and they didn't crash.
>>>>>> only with auto around the 631 test for desktop and around 642 on my
>>>>>> laptop for both not patched and patched kernels.I'm going to update you
>>>>>> on that matter when I can have predictable behavior and cause of the
>>>>>> crash/call stack.But expect slow progress from my part here for the
>>>>>> reason I mentionned before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No problem. Take your time.
>>>>>
>>>> Continuing on this. I have run xfstests today on the base 6.18-rc7
>>>> unmodified kernel ( I will do it again for latest release) and captured
>>>> the crash.
>>>> The following is the decoded crash report:
>>>> [ 1572.093549] [T1127273] Oops: general protection fault, maybe for
>>>> address 0xffffcaa2c1da364c: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
>>>> [ 1572.093555] [T1127273] Tainted: [S]=CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, [O]=OOT_MODULE,
>>>> [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
>>>> [ 1572.093556] [T1127273] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
>>>> B760 DS3H/B760 DS3H, BIOS F12 02/25/2025
>>>> [ 1572.093557] [T1127273] RIP: 0010:memcpy (arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:38)
>>>> [ 1572.093560] [T1127273] Code: 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00
>>>> 00 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 66 90 48
>>>> 89 f8 48 89 d1 <f3> a4 c3 cc cc cc cc 66 90 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00
>>>> 00 00 90 90
>>>> All code
>>>> ========
>>>> 0: 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 cs nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>>>> 7: 00 00
>>>> 9: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>>>> e: 90 nop
>>>> f: 90 nop
>>>> 10: 90 nop
>>>> 11: 90 nop
>>>> 12: 90 nop
>>>> 13: 90 nop
>>>> 14: 90 nop
>>>> 15: 90 nop
>>>> 16: 90 nop
>>>> 17: 90 nop
>>>> 18: 90 nop
>>>> 19: 90 nop
>>>> 1a: 90 nop
>>>> 1b: 90 nop
>>>> 1c: 90 nop
>>>> 1d: 90 nop
>>>> 1e: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
>>>> 22: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
>>>> 24: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
>>>> 27: 48 89 d1 mov %rdx,%rcx
>>>> 2a:* f3 a4 rep movsb (%rsi),(%rdi) <-- trapping
>>>> instruction
>>>> 2c: c3 ret
>>>> 2d: cc int3
>>>> 2e: cc int3
>>>> 2f: cc int3
>>>> 30: cc int3
>>>> 31: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
>>>> 33: 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>>>> 3a: 00 00 00 00
>>>> 3e: 90 nop
>>>> 3f: 90 nop
>>>>
>>>> Code starting with the faulting instruction
>>>> ===========================================
>>>> 0: f3 a4 rep movsb (%rsi),(%rdi)
>>>> 2: c3 ret
>>>> 3: cc int3
>>>> 4: cc int3
>>>> 5: cc int3
>>>> 6: cc int3
>>>> 7: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
>>>> 9: 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>>>> 10: 00 00 00 00
>>>> 14: 90 nop
>>>> 15: 90 nop
>>>> [ 1572.093561] [T1127273] RSP: 0018:ffffcaa2c1da3610 EFLAGS: 00010206
>>>> [ 1572.093563] [T1127273] RAX: ffffcaa2c1da364c RBX: 0000000000000004
>>>> RCX: 0000000000000004
>>>> [ 1572.093564] [T1127273] RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: 0ddc8fa7cb9c9ff6
>>>> RDI: ffffcaa2c1da364c
>>>> [ 1572.093565] [T1127273] RBP: 0000000000000004 R08: 0000000000002000
>>>> R09: ffff89e0966c8118
>>>> [ 1572.093566] [T1127273] R10: 0000000000000009 R11: 000000000000000a
>>>> R12: ffffcaa2c1da364c
>>>> [ 1572.093566] [T1127273] R13: ffff89e085beee98 R14: 0000000000000004
>>>> R15: ffff89e085beee40
>>>> [ 1572.093567] [T1127273] FS: 00007f9b755ddc40(0000)
>>>> GS:ffff89e8af90e000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>> [ 1572.093568] [T1127273] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>> [ 1572.093569] [T1127273] CR2: 00007f0cc5b95a10 CR3: 00000003448b9001
>>>> CR4: 0000000000f72ef0
>>>> [ 1572.093570] [T1127273] PKRU: 55555554
>>>> [ 1572.093570] [T1127273] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 1572.093572] [T1127273] <TASK>
>>>> Server query failed: No such file or directory
>>>> [ 1572.093574] [T1127273] hfsplus_bnode_read (fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:49
>>>> fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:23) hfsplus
>
> Probably, we are still trying to read out of allocated memory for b-tree node
> despite the check_and_correct_requested_length() efforts to protect against
> this:
>
> void hfs_bnode_read(struct hfs_bnode *node, void *buf, u32 off, u32 len)
> {
> struct page **pagep;
> u32 l;
>
> if (!is_bnode_offset_valid(node, off))
> return;
>
> if (len == 0) {
> pr_err("requested zero length: "
> "NODE: id %u, type %#x, height %u, "
> "node_size %u, offset %u, len %u\n",
> node->this, node->type, node->height,
> node->tree->node_size, off, len);
> return;
> }
>
> len = check_and_correct_requested_length(node, off, len);
>
> off += node->page_offset;
> pagep = node->page + (off >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> off &= ~PAGE_MASK;
>
> l = min_t(u32, len, PAGE_SIZE - off);
> memcpy_from_page(buf, *pagep, off, l);
>
> while ((len -= l) != 0) {
> buf += l;
> l = min_t(u32, len, PAGE_SIZE);
> memcpy_from_page(buf, *++pagep, 0, l);
> }
> }
>
> Potentially, node_size and real allocated memory is not consistent with each
> other:
>
> static inline
> u32 check_and_correct_requested_length(struct hfs_bnode *node, u32 off, u32 len)
> {
> unsigned int node_size;
>
> if (!is_bnode_offset_valid(node, off))
> return 0;
>
> node_size = node->tree->node_size;
>
> if ((off + len) > node_size) {
> u32 new_len = node_size - off;
>
> pr_err("requested length has been corrected: "
> "NODE: id %u, type %#x, height %u, "
> "node_size %u, offset %u, "
> "requested_len %u, corrected_len %u\n",
> node->this, node->type, node->height,
> node->tree->node_size, off, len, new_len);
>
> return new_len;
> }
>
> return len;
> }
>
> So, I assume that it makes sense to check the correctness of node_size value.
> But, maybe, the reason is somewhere else. However, I remember this report [1]
> for HFS. The issue could be the same for HFS+ too.
>
I have ran xfstests on both my desktop and laptop on the for-next branch
for the repository that you have mentionned and I didn't have any crash
or issue. Here is the test results(identical for both desktop and laptop):
FSTYP -- hfsplus
PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 bhk 6.19.0-rc1-00008-ged8889ca21b6 #1 SMP
PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Jan 19 20:53:58 CET 2026
MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/loop1
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/loop1 /mnt/scratch

generic/001 2s ... 2s
generic/002 1s ... 1s
<skip>
Failed 51 of 772 tests

Many tests were skipped of course. If you want full output I can send
you that.But for now the issue seem to be resolved (for hfsplus at least
I'm not sure about hfs since I still can't test it on my system).
Thanks for your efforts slava.

> Thanks,
> Slava.
>
Best regards,
Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa
> [1] https://github.com/hfs-linux-kernel/hfs-linux-kernel/issues/241
>
>>>> [ 1572.093580] [T1127273] ? __pfx_hfs_find_rec_by_key
>>>> (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:86) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093584] [T1127273] hfsplus_brec_lenoff (fs/hfsplus/brec.c:27) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093588] [T1127273] __hfsplus_brec_find (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:118)
>>>> hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093592] [T1127273] hfsplus_brec_find (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:191) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093596] [T1127273] ? __pfx_hfs_find_rec_by_key
>>>> (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:86) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093599] [T1127273] hfsplus_attr_exists
>>>> (fs/hfsplus/attributes.c:190) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093603] [T1127273] __hfsplus_setxattr (fs/hfsplus/xattr.c:340
>>>> (discriminator 1)) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093610] [T1127273] hfsplus_setxattr (fs/hfsplus/xattr.c:437) hfsplus
>>>> [ 1572.093613] [T1127273] __vfs_setxattr (fs/xattr.c:200)
>>>> [ 1572.093616] [T1127273] __vfs_setxattr_noperm (fs/xattr.c:236)
>>>> [ 1572.093619] [T1127273] vfs_setxattr (./include/linux/fs.h:990
>>>> fs/xattr.c:323)
>>>> [ 1572.093621] [T1127273] filename_setxattr (fs/xattr.c:666)
>>>> [ 1572.093623] [T1127273] path_setxattrat (fs/xattr.c:715)
>>>> [ 1572.093626] [T1127273] __x64_sys_lsetxattr (fs/xattr.c:750
>>>> (discriminator 2))
>>>> [ 1572.093628] [T1127273] do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63
>>>> (discriminator 1) arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
>>>> [ 1572.093630] [T1127273] ? do_syscall_64
>>>> (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 (discriminator 1)
>>>> arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
>>>> [ 1572.093631] [T1127273] ? __x64_sys_lsetxattr (fs/xattr.c:750
>>>> (discriminator 2))
>>>> [ 1572.093633] [T1127273] ? do_syscall_64
>>>> (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 (discriminator 1)
>>>> arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
>>>> [ 1572.093633] [T1127273] ? __irq_exit_rcu (kernel/softirq.c:688
>>>> (discriminator 1) kernel/softirq.c:729 (discriminator 1))
>>>> [ 1572.093636] [T1127273] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
>>>> (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130)
>>>> [ 1572.093637] [T1127273] RIP: 0033:0x7f9b7531697e
>>>> [ 1572.093654] [T1127273] Code: 83 c4 18 48 89 d8 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e
>>>> 41 5f 5d c3 0f 1f 00 31 db eb e7 0f 1f 40 00 f3 0f 1e fa 49 89 ca b8 bd
>>>> 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 62 13 0f 00 f7 d8
>>>> 64 89 01 48
>>>> All code
>>>> ========
>>>> 0: 83 c4 18 add $0x18,%esp
>>>> 3: 48 89 d8 mov %rbx,%rax
>>>> 6: 5b pop %rbx
>>>> 7: 41 5c pop %r12
>>>> 9: 41 5d pop %r13
>>>> b: 41 5e pop %r14
>>>> d: 41 5f pop %r15
>>>> f: 5d pop %rbp
>>>> 10: c3 ret
>>>> 11: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
>>>> 14: 31 db xor %ebx,%ebx
>>>> 16: eb e7 jmp 0xffffffffffffffff
>>>> 18: 0f 1f 40 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
>>>> 1c: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
>>>> 20: 49 89 ca mov %rcx,%r10
>>>> 23: b8 bd 00 00 00 mov $0xbd,%eax
>>>> 28: 0f 05 syscall
>>>> 2a:* 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax <--
>>>> trapping instruction
>>>> 30: 73 01 jae 0x33
>>>> 32: c3 ret
>>>> 33: 48 8b 0d 62 13 0f 00 mov 0xf1362(%rip),%rcx # 0xf139c
>>>> 3a: f7 d8 neg %eax
>>>> 3c: 64 89 01 mov %eax,%fs:(%rcx)
>>>> 3f: 48 rex.W
>>>>
>>>> Code starting with the faulting instruction
>>>> ===========================================
>>>> 0: 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax
>>>> 6: 73 01 jae 0x9
>>>> 8: c3 ret
>>>> 9: 48 8b 0d 62 13 0f 00 mov 0xf1362(%rip),%rcx # 0xf1372
>>>> 10: f7 d8 neg %eax
>>>> 12: 64 89 01 mov %eax,%fs:(%rcx)
>>>> 15: 48 rex.W
>>>> [ 1572.093655] [T1127273] RSP: 002b:00007ffc251dfbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246
>>>> ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000bd
>>>> [ 1572.093656] [T1127273] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000
>>>> RCX: 00007f9b7531697e
>>>> [ 1572.093657] [T1127273] RDX: 00005617e5af5990 RSI: 00007ffc251dfd70
>>>> RDI: 00005617e5af9190
>>>> [ 1572.093657] [T1127273] RBP: 00007ffc251dfd60 R08: 0000000000000000
>>>> R09: 0000000000000000
>>>> [ 1572.093658] [T1127273] R10: 00000000000002a1 R11: 0000000000000246
>>>> R12: 00007ffc251dfd70
>>>> [ 1572.093658] [T1127273] R13: 00005617e5af5990 R14: 00000000000002a1
>>>> R15: 0000000000001ae7
>>>> [ 1572.093660] [T1127273] </TASK>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should be noted that before the crash, dmesg shows that the generic test
>>>> 642 is stuck repeatedly trying to "replace xattr" which is triggered in
>>>> the __hfsplus_setxattr() function under fs/hfsplus/xattr line 354.
>>>> relevant dmesg output:
>>>> [ 1571.407168] [ T4294] run fstests generic/642 at 2026-01-17 14:49:36
>>>> [ 1571.892677] [T1127270] hfsplus: cannot replace xattr
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> [ 1572.092869] [T1127271] hfsplus: cannot replace xattr
>>>> [ 1572.093234] [T1127270] hfsplus: cannot replace xattr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If more information relevant to the crash or more testing is needed I
>>>> would do my best to help.I will also provide more crash info for the
>>>> 6.18-rc7 patched kernel and 6.19-rc4 base and patched kernel soon.
>>>
>>> Could you please test/check the issue reproduction on current state of
>>> origin/for-next branch of HFS/HFS+ tree [1]?
>>>
>> Yes, I will do it now and get back to you later tonight.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Also I wanted to check on the v3 patches current status. Do they need
>>>> more revision or they were missed to be merged in?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> I've already applied your patchset on HFS/HFS+ tree [1]. You can see it in
>>> origin/for-next branch.
>>>
>> Ah, I missed that. Thanks for the heads up!
>>> Thanks,
>>> Slava.
>>>
>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vdubeyko/hfs.git
>> Best Regards,
>> Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa