Hi Slava,

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, I agree. A small reusable check helper would make the code cleaner
and avoid duplicating the range validation.

Regarding hfs_bnode_write(), I also agree that its current void
interface makes proper error handling difficult. Converting it to
return an error code and auditing its callers looks like the right
direction for a follow-up refactoring.

For this patch, I will keep the change small, introduce the reusable
check helper, and send a v3.

I would be happy to work on the hfs_bnode_write() refactoring as a
follow-up as well.

Thanks,
Davy Felipe

On Wed, 23 Sep 2026, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:

> On Tue, 2026-09-22 at 20:40 -0300, Davy Felipe wrote:
>> __hfs_ext_write_extent() does not report all failures while updating
>> the extents B-tree.
>>
>> When inserting a new extent record, the return value of
>> hfs_brec_insert() is ignored and HFS_FLG_EXT_DIRTY and
>> HFS_FLG_EXT_NEW
>> are cleared even if the insertion fails.
>>
>> When updating an existing extent record, hfs_bnode_write() returns
>> void, so its caller cannot detect a rejected write. Validate the
>> extent
>> record size and node range before calling hfs_bnode_write().
>>
>> Propagate errors returned by hfs_brec_insert() and return -EIO for an
>> invalid existing extent record. Only clear the extent dirty flags
>> after
>> a successful operation.
>>
>> Fault injection confirmed both failure paths. Insertion errors are
>> propagated to the caller, and invalid existing-record writes are
>> rejected before hfs_bnode_write() without clearing the dirty state.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Davy Felipe <davyfelipe34@gmail.com>
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Validate the existing extent record size and node range before
>>   calling hfs_bnode_write(), following review feedback.
>> - Return -EIO without clearing HFS_FLG_EXT_DIRTY when validation
>>   fails.
>> - Fault-injection tested the existing-record failure path. Before the
>>   change, hfs_bnode_write() rejected an invalid offset internally but
>>   __hfs_ext_write_extent() continued and cleared the dirty flag. With
>>   v2, the invalid write is rejected before hfs_bnode_write().
>>
>> ---
>>  fs/hfs/extent.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/hfs/extent.c b/fs/hfs/extent.c
>> index f066a99a863b..13426503fbb3 100644
>> --- a/fs/hfs/extent.c
>> +++ b/fs/hfs/extent.c
>> @@ -121,12 +121,21 @@ static int __hfs_ext_write_extent(struct inode
>> *inode, struct hfs_find_data *fd)
>>  		res = hfs_bmap_reserve(fd->tree, fd->tree->depth +
>> 1);
>>  		if (res)
>>  			return res;
>> -		hfs_brec_insert(fd, HFS_I(inode)->cached_extents,
>> sizeof(hfs_extent_rec));
>> +		res = hfs_brec_insert(fd, HFS_I(inode)-
>>> cached_extents,
>> +				      sizeof(hfs_extent_rec));
>> +		if (res)
>> +			return res;
>>  		HFS_I(inode)->flags &=
>> ~(HFS_FLG_EXT_DIRTY|HFS_FLG_EXT_NEW);
>>  	} else {
>>  		if (res)
>>  			return res;
>> -		hfs_bnode_write(fd->bnode, HFS_I(inode)-
>>> cached_extents, fd->entryoffset, fd->entrylength);
>> +		if (fd->entrylength != sizeof(hfs_extent_rec) ||
>> +		    fd->entryoffset < 0 ||
>> +		    (u64)fd->entryoffset + fd->entrylength >
>> +			    fd->tree->node_size)
>
> I think it will be better to introduce a small check function that can
> be reused then. And code will be cleaner here. What do you think?
>
>> +			return -EIO;
>> +		hfs_bnode_write(fd->bnode, HFS_I(inode)-
>>> cached_extents,
>> +				fd->entryoffset, fd->entrylength);
>
> I see that you are trying not to go into huge modification. But,
> frankly speaking, I believe we need the refactoring of
> hfs_bnode_write() calling. This function should return error code and
> we need to process this error code in other methods. Maybe, future
> refactoring work for you? ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Slava.
>
>>  		HFS_I(inode)->flags &= ~HFS_FLG_EXT_DIRTY;
>>  	}
>>  	return 0;
>