On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:39:13PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 10:52:22AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:55:46AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 02:38:46PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree.
> > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > > > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From 0dcd3c94e02438f4a571690e26f4ee997524102a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 01:58:01 +0800
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] erofs: fix extended inode could cross boundary
> > > >
> > > > Each ondisk inode should be aligned with inode slot boundary
> > > > (32-byte alignment) because of nid calculation formula, so all
> > > > compact inodes (32 byte) cannot across page boundary. However,
> > > > extended inode is now 64-byte form, which can across page boundary
> > > > in principle if the location is specified on purpose, although
> > > > it's hard to be generated by mkfs due to the allocation policy
> > > > and rarely used by Android use case now mainly for > 4GiB files.
> > > >
> > > > For now, only two fields `i_ctime_nsec` and `i_nlink' couldn't
> > > > be read from disk properly and cause out-of-bound memory read
> > > > with random value.
> > > >
> > > > Let's fix now.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 431339ba9042 ("staging: erofs: add inode operations")
> > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.19+
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200729175801.GA23973@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Yeah, due to code difference, will manually backport this later...
> >
> > What ever happened to this backport? Did I miss it somewhere?
>
> Thanks for your reminder, since the codebase was cleaned up and 4.19
> codebase is somewhat different from the current codebase.
>
> Sorry for forgeting it, and I will try to pick it up and send it out soon.
No worries, just ran across this and wanted to make sure that I didn't
drop it on my end somewhere.
thanks,
greg k-h
