Re: [PATCH 2/3] erofs-utils: lib: reject packed inodes in metabox

On 2026/5/12 15:46, zhaoyifan (H) wrote:
> 
> On 2026/5/12 15:33, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2026/5/12 15:16, Yifan Zhao wrote:
>>> If packed_nid carries the metabox NID bit, loading the packed
>>> inode first redirects its inode metadata lookup through the
>>> metabox inode.  Initializing that metabox inode can then read
>>> metadata that refers back through the packed inode, forming a
>>> recursive packed inode -> metabox inode -> packed inode path.
>>>
>>> Reject such images while parsing the superblock, matching the
>>> format rule that the special packed inode itself is not stored
>>> inside the metabox.
>>>
>>> Reproducible image (base64-encoded gzipped blob):
>>> H4sIAAAAAAAAA2NgGAWjYBSMVPDo4dcHrY0KwsxANg8jAwMLFjVMSGzPx/7Lzj3zXb3jSFTh
>>> 5iN7v6CrbQSa8f8/gq8GoRpARHErYxYDEh8EVAm4jw2Il4AMFYDoB7IYmDGVNRhAzf8PBMh+
>>> yEjNyclXKM8vyklRIILNRcA5o2AUjIJRMApGwSgYBaNgFAxpAGorv3VkYtBgQLSfQW3sF8wv
>>> kJvZDSqIXkCDKpANlWxQZ2Bk0NPTS8RlPkgXqP0Oa5/DxNDNB7XvR8EoGAWjYBSMglEwCkbB
>>> KBgFo2AUjIJRQBsAAEZO6n4AIAAA
>>>
>>> Assisted-by: Codex:GPT-5.5
>>> Signed-off-by: Yifan Zhao <[email protected]>
>>
>> Can you fix the kernel instead first and backport to
>> erofs-utils? like below,
>>
> OK. Should we do the same for [PATCH 1/3] too?

Basically for incompatble features, they should assume to 0.
So I don't think [PATCH 1/3] is needed.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang