From 47773fa85e470e9896a22a99ccd5b5930d469680 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: DaeMyung Kang Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:54:47 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] ntfs: use base mft_no when looking up base inode for extent record When the mft record is an extent record, ntfs_may_write_mft_record() looks up its base inode in the icache. The hash key passed to find_inode_nowait() must be the base inode's mft number (na.mft_no, set just above to MREF_LE(m->base_mft_record)), but the code passes @mft_no, the extent record's own number. find_inode_nowait() uses its second argument as the hashval, so the lookup lands in the wrong bucket and almost always returns NULL. ntfs_may_write_mft_record() then returns false and the writeback path (ntfs_write_mft_block()) skips that extent record, leaving the on-disk copy permanently out of sync with the in-memory one. The original ilookup5_nowait() call this conversion replaced used na.mft_no. Restore that. Fixes: 115380f9a2f9 ("ntfs: update mft operations") Signed-off-by: DaeMyung Kang Reviewed-by: Hyunchul Lee Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon --- fs/ntfs/mft.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/ntfs/mft.c b/fs/ntfs/mft.c index 7d989267a82b..ef423303565d 100644 --- a/fs/ntfs/mft.c +++ b/fs/ntfs/mft.c @@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ static bool ntfs_may_write_mft_record(struct ntfs_volume *vol, const u64 mft_no, vi = igrab(mft_vi); WARN_ON(vi != mft_vi); } else { - vi = find_inode_nowait(sb, mft_no, ntfs_test_inode_wb, &na); + vi = find_inode_nowait(sb, na.mft_no, ntfs_test_inode_wb, &na); if (na.state == NI_BeingDeleted || na.state == NI_BeingCreated) return false; }