Discussion:
Bug#1089698: linux: Loop-mounted UDF ISOs no longer readable
(too old to reply)
Daniel Reichelt
2024-12-23 03:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Additionally I have now reported the issue on the regressions list as
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/


Thanks to y'all!
Daniel
Zhao Mengmeng
2024-12-23 09:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Reichelt
Additionally I have now reported the issue on the regressions list as
Splendid, thanks!
  6.1.112-1
UNKNOWN - not in [1], yet to be bisected/compiled
  6.1.113
  6.1.114
  6.1.115-1
  6.1.119-1
  6.1.120 not part of [1], but out-of-tree build was bad
  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.
Post by Daniel Reichelt
Thanks to y'all!
Daniel
Loading...