[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de0c14c4-5565-4366-a75a-f99d4380777c@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:05:08 +0800
From: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Ahmet Eray Karadag <eraykrdg1@...il.com>, mark@...heh.com,
jlbec@...lplan.org
Cc: ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
david.hunter.linux@...il.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
syzbot+55c40ae8a0e5f3659f2b@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Albin Babu Varghese <albinbabuvarghese20@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ocfs2: Invalidate inode if i_mode is zero after block
read
On 2025/10/24 10:30, Ahmet Eray Karadag wrote:
> A panic occurs in ocfs2_unlink due to WARN_ON(inode->i_nlink == 0) when
> handling a corrupted inode with i_mode=0 and i_nlink=0 in memory.
>
> This "zombie" inode is created because ocfs2_read_locked_inode proceeds
> even after ocfs2_validate_inode_block successfully validates a block
> that structurally looks okay (passes checksum, signature etc.) but
> contains semantically invalid data (specifically i_mode=0). The current
> validation function doesn't check for i_mode being zero.
>
> This results in an in-memory inode with i_mode=0 being added to the VFS
> cache, which later triggers the panic during unlink.
>
> Prevent this by adding an explicit check for i_mode == 0 within
> ocfs2_validate_inode_block. If i_mode is zero, return -EFSCORRUPTED to signal
> corruption. This causes the caller (ocfs2_read_locked_inode) to invoke
> make_bad_inode(), correctly preventing the zombie inode from entering
> the cache.
>
> ---
> [RFC]:
> The current fix handles i_mode=0 corruption detected during inode read
> by returning -EFSCORRUPTED from ocfs2_validate_inode_block, which leads to
> make_bad_inode() being called, preventing the corrupted inode from
> entering the cache. This approach avoids immediately forcing the entire
> filesystem read-only, assuming the corruption might be localized to
> this inode.
>
> Is this less aggressive error handling strategy appropriate for i_mode=0
> corruption? Or is this condition considered severe enough that we *should*
> explicitly call ocfs2_error() within the validation function to guarantee
> the filesystem is marked read-only immediately upon detection?
> Feedback and testing on the correct severity assessment and error
> handling for this type of corruption would be appreciated.
> ---
> v2:
> - Reviewed how ext4 handling same situation and we come up with this
> solution
> ---
The version change log should be after your SOB.
> Reported-by: syzbot+55c40ae8a0e5f3659f2b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=55c40ae8a0e5f3659f2b
> Co-developed-by: Albin Babu Varghese <albinbabuvarghese20@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Albin Babu Varghese <albinbabuvarghese20@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmet Eray Karadag <eraykrdg1@...il.com>
> ---
> fs/ocfs2/inode.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c
> index 14bf440ea4df..6c936f62b169 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c
> @@ -1455,7 +1455,15 @@ int ocfs2_validate_inode_block(struct super_block *sb,
> (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr);
> goto bail;
> }
> -
> + if (di->i_links_count == 0) {
> + if (le16_to_cpu(di->i_mode) == 0 ||
> + !(le32_to_cpu(di->i_flags) & OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL)) {
Why not put those in a single check?
BTW, i_links_count is little endian and should convert to host endian first.
And we'd prefer the following alignment:
if (!le16_to_cpu(di->i_links_count) && !le16_to_cpu(di->i_mode) &&
!(le32_to_cpu(di->i_flags) & OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL))
......
Thanks,
Joseph
> + mlog(ML_ERROR, "Invalid dinode #%llu: i_mode is zero!\n",
> + (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr);
> + rc = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> + goto bail;
> + }
> + }
> /*
> * Errors after here are fatal.
> */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists