On Sat, 2025-08-02 at 06:52 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2025/08/02 3:26, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > On Fri, 2025-08-01 at 06:12 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2025/08/01 3:03, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 07:02 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > On 2025/07/31 4:24, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > > > > > If we considering case HFS_CDR_DIR in hfs_read_inode(), then we know that it > > > > > > could be HFS_POR_CNID, HFS_ROOT_CNID, or >= HFS_FIRSTUSER_CNID. Do you mean that > > > > > > HFS_POR_CNID could be a problem in hfs_write_inode()? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Passing one of 1, 5 or 15 instead of 2 from hfs_fill_super() triggers BUG() > > > > > in hfs_write_inode(). We *MUST* validate at hfs_fill_super(), or hfs_read_inode() > > > > > shall have to also reject 1, 5 and 15 (and as a result only accept 2). > > > > > > > > The fix should be in hfs_read_inode(). Currently, suggested solution hides the > > > > issue but not fix the problem. > > > > > > Not fixing this problem might be hiding other issues, by hitting BUG() before > > > other issues shows up. > > > > > > > I am not going to start a philosophical discussion. We simply need to fix the > > bug. The suggested patch doesn't fix the issue. > > What is your issue? > > My issue (what syzbot is reporting) is that the kernel crashes if the inode number > of the record retrieved as a result of hfs_cat_find_brec(HFS_ROOT_CNID) is not > HFS_ROOT_CNID. My suggested patch does fix my issue. > > > Please, don't use hardcoded value. I already shared the point that we must use > > the declared constants. > > > > This function is incorrect and it cannot work for folders and files at the same > > time. > > I already shared that I don't plan to try writing such function > ( http://lkml.kernel.org/r/38d8f48e-47c3-4d67-9caa-498f3b47004f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ). > > Please show us your patch that solves your issue. OK. It will be faster to write my own patch. It works for me. Thanks, Slava.
