On 2024/12/23 11:10, Daniel Reichelt wrote:
> On 20.12.24 20:55, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> Additionally I have now reported the issue on the regressions list as
>> well:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/z2xky0f6on1ub...@eldamar.lan/T/#u
>
> Splendid, thanks!
>
>
> Quick update: 6.2 is also OK, so we have:
>
> OK still:
> 6.1.112-1
> UNKNOWN - not in [1], yet to be bisected/compiled
> 6.1.113
> 6.1.114
> BAD:
> 6.1.115-1
> 6.1.119-1
> 6.1.120 not part of [1], but out-of-tree build was bad
> OK again:
> 6.2 (upstream vanilla)
> 6.3.1-1~exp1
> 6.11.10 (current Debian testing/Trixie)
> 6.12.5 (current Debian unstable/sid)
>
>
> [1] https://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/
Hi Jan, I have tested v6.1 upstream kernel with x86_64_defconfig, it turns out:
v6.1.112 is good as Daniel reported,
v6.1.114 is bad, but the log is little different.
[ 21.307158] UDF-fs: error (device sr0): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after
position 12280 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
[ 21.307832] UDF-fs: error (device sr0): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312)
has entry where CRC length (2) does not match entry length (24)
[ 21.308738] UDF-fs: error (device sr0): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after
position 12280 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
[ 21.309785] UDF-fs: error (device sr0): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312)
has entry where CRC length (2) does not match entry length (24)
[ 21.310996] UDF-fs: error (device sr0): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after
position 12280 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
I also manually revert my patch "udf: refactor udf_current_aext() to handle
error" based on v6.1.115, and
it's still broken, looks like something wrong in v6.1.114. Can you have a look?
Besides, I noticed that v6.1 LTS backports only 1 of 3 of the refactor patches
wich I submitted, that may be a problem.
>
> Thanks to y'all!
> Daniel
