On Tue, 7 May 2024 21:21:16 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/sb-clean.c b/fs/bcachefs/sb-clean.c
> > > > > index 35ca3f138de6..194e55b11137 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/bcachefs/sb-clean.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/bcachefs/sb-clean.c
> > > > > @@ -278,6 +278,17 @@ static int bch2_sb_clean_validate(struct bch_sb
> > > > > *sb,
> > > > > return -BCH_ERR_invalid_sb_clean;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + for (struct jset_entry *entry = clean->start;
> > > > > + entry != vstruct_end(&clean->field);
> > > > > + entry = vstruct_next(entry)) {
> > > > > + if ((void *) vstruct_next(entry) >
> > > > > vstruct_end(&clean->field)) {
> > > > > + prt_str(err, "entry type ");
> > > > > + bch2_prt_jset_entry_type(err,
> > > > > le16_to_cpu(entry->type));
> > > > > + prt_str(err, " overruns end of section");
> > > > > + return -BCH_ERR_invalid_sb_clean;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > The original judgment here is sufficient, there is no need to add this
> > > > section of inspection.
> > >
> > > No, we need to be able to print things that failed to validate so that
> > > we see what went wrong.
> > The follow check work fine, why add above check ?
> > 1 if (vstruct_bytes(&clean->field) < sizeof(*clean)) {
> > 268 prt_printf(err, "wrong size (got %zu should be %zu)",
> > 1 vstruct_bytes(&clean->field), sizeof(*clean));
> >
>
> You sure you're not inebriated?
Here, is my test log, according to it, I can confirm what went wrong.
[ 129.350671][ T7772] bcachefs (/dev/loop0): error validating superblock:
Invalid superblock section clean: wrong size (got 8 should be 24)
[ 129.350671][ T7772] clean (size 8):
[ 129.350671][ T7772] flags: 0
[ 129.350671][ T7772] journal_seq: 0
