On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 07:42:35PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> I can update patch description if you have one, but I don't plan to try something like below.
Why not? Papering over the underlying problem is what I rejected in v1,
and here we are months later with you trying a v4.
> @@ -393,20 +393,30 @@ struct inode *hfs_iget(struct super_block *sb, struct hfs_cat_key *key, hfs_cat_
> switch (rec->type) {
> case HFS_CDR_DIR:
> cnid = be32_to_cpu(rec->dir.DirID);
> break;
> case HFS_CDR_FIL:
> cnid = be32_to_cpu(rec->file.FlNum);
> break;
> default:
> return NULL;
> }
> + if (cnid < HFS_FIRSTUSER_CNID) {
> + switch (cnid) {
> + case HFS_ROOT_CNID:
> + case HFS_EXT_CNID:
> + case HFS_CAT_CNID:
> + break;
> + default:
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + }
> inode = iget5_locked(sb, cnid, hfs_test_inode, hfs_read_inode, &data);
> if (inode && (inode->i_state & I_NEW))
> unlock_new_inode(inode);
> return inode;
> }
>
