On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 08:54:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [BUG]
> If we run btrfs with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS=y, it will
> instantly cause kernel panic like:
> 
> ------
> ...
> assertion failed: 0, file: fs/btrfs/disk-io.c, line: 3853
> ...
> Call Trace:
>  btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty+0x187/0x1f0 [btrfs]
>  setup_items_for_insert+0x385/0x650 [btrfs]
>  __btrfs_drop_extents+0x129a/0x1870 [btrfs]
> ...
> -----
> 
> [Cause]
> Btrfs will call btrfs_check_leaf() in btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() to check
> if the leaf is valid with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS=y.
> 
> However quite some btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() callers(*) don't really
> initialize its item data but only initialize its item pointers, leaving
> item data uninitialized.
> 
> This makes tree-checker catch uninitialized data as error, causing
> such panic.
> 
> *: These callers include but not limited to
> setup_items_for_insert()
> btrfs_split_item()
> btrfs_expand_item()
> 
> [Fix]
> Add a new parameter @check_item_data to btrfs_check_leaf().
> With @check_item_data set to false, item data check will be skipped and
> fallback to old btrfs_check_leaf() behavior.
> 
> So we can still get early warning if we screw up item pointers, and
> avoid false panic.
> 

Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li....@oracle.com>

Thanks,

-liubo
> Cc: Filipe Manana <fdman...@gmail.com>
> Reported-by: Lakshmipathi.G <lakshmipath...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c      | 10 ++++++++--
>  fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index efce9a2fa9be..10a2a579cc7f 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ static int btree_readpage_end_io_hook(struct btrfs_io_bio 
> *io_bio,
>        * that we don't try and read the other copies of this block, just
>        * return -EIO.
>        */
> -     if (found_level == 0 && btrfs_check_leaf(root, eb)) {
> +     if (found_level == 0 && btrfs_check_leaf_full(root, eb)) {
>               set_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_CORRUPT, &eb->bflags);
>               ret = -EIO;
>       }
> @@ -3848,7 +3848,13 @@ void btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty(struct extent_buffer *buf)
>                                        buf->len,
>                                        fs_info->dirty_metadata_batch);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY
> -     if (btrfs_header_level(buf) == 0 && btrfs_check_leaf(root, buf)) {
> +     /*
> +      * Since btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() can be called with item pointer set
> +      * but item data not updated.
> +      * So here we should only check item pointers, not item data.
> +      */
> +     if (btrfs_header_level(buf) == 0 &&
> +         btrfs_check_leaf_relaxed(root, buf)) {
>               btrfs_print_leaf(buf);
>               ASSERT(0);
>       }
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> index 114fc5f0ecc5..ce4ed6ec8f39 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> @@ -242,7 +242,8 @@ static int check_leaf_item(struct btrfs_root *root,
>       return ret;
>  }
>  
> -int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *leaf)
> +static int check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *leaf,
> +                   bool check_item_data)
>  {
>       struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info;
>       /* No valid key type is 0, so all key should be larger than this key */
> @@ -361,10 +362,15 @@ int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct 
> extent_buffer *leaf)
>                       return -EUCLEAN;
>               }
>  
> -             /* Check if the item size and content meet other criteria */
> -             ret = check_leaf_item(root, leaf, &key, slot);
> -             if (ret < 0)
> -                     return ret;
> +             if (check_item_data) {
> +                     /*
> +                      * Check if the item size and content meet other
> +                      * criteria
> +                      */
> +                     ret = check_leaf_item(root, leaf, &key, slot);
> +                     if (ret < 0)
> +                             return ret;
> +             }
>  
>               prev_key.objectid = key.objectid;
>               prev_key.type = key.type;
> @@ -374,6 +380,17 @@ int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct 
> extent_buffer *leaf)
>       return 0;
>  }
>  
> +int btrfs_check_leaf_full(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer 
> *leaf)
> +{
> +     return check_leaf(root, leaf, true);
> +}
> +
> +int btrfs_check_leaf_relaxed(struct btrfs_root *root,
> +                          struct extent_buffer *leaf)
> +{
> +     return check_leaf(root, leaf, false);
> +}
> +
>  int btrfs_check_node(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *node)
>  {
>       unsigned long nr = btrfs_header_nritems(node);
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h
> index 96c486e95d70..3d53e8d6fda0 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,19 @@
>  #include "ctree.h"
>  #include "extent_io.h"
>  
> -int btrfs_check_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *leaf);
> +/*
> + * Comprehensive leaf checker.
> + * Will check not only the item pointers, but also every possible member
> + * in item data.
> + */
> +int btrfs_check_leaf_full(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer 
> *leaf);
> +
> +/*
> + * Less strict leaf checker.
> + * Will only check item pointers, not reading item data.
> + */
> +int btrfs_check_leaf_relaxed(struct btrfs_root *root,
> +                          struct extent_buffer *leaf);
>  int btrfs_check_node(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer *node);
>  
>  #endif
> -- 
> 2.15.0
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to