Re: Bug#1089698: linux: Loop-mounted UDF ISOs no longer readable

[Zhao Mengmeng]

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/Z2XKY0f6on1UbwWb@xxxxxxxxxxx/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