IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
[ Upstream commit 899b7f69f244e539ea5df1b4d756046337de44a5 ]
We're seeing a weird problem in production where we have overlapping
extent items in the extent tree. It's unclear where these are coming
from, and in debugging we realized there's no check in the tree checker
for this sort of problem. Add a check to the tree-checker to make sure
that the extents do not overlap each other.
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 1119a72e223f3073a604f8fccb3a470ccd8a4416 upstream.
The tree checker checks the extent ref hash at read and write time to
make sure we do not corrupt the file system. Generally extent
references go inline, but if we have enough of them we need to make an
item, which looks like
key.objectid = <bytenr>
key.type = <BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_REF_KEY|BTRFS_TREE_BLOCK_REF_KEY>
key.offset = hash(tree, owner, offset)
However if key.offset collide with an unrelated extent reference we'll
simply key.offset++ until we get something that doesn't collide.
Obviously this doesn't match at tree checker time, and thus we error
while writing out the transaction. This is relatively easy to
reproduce, simply do something like the following
xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 1M" file
offset=2
for i in {0..10000}
do
xfs_io -c "reflink file 0 ${offset}M 1M" file
offset=$(( offset + 2 ))
done
xfs_io -c "reflink file 0 17999258914816 1M" file
xfs_io -c "reflink file 0 35998517829632 1M" file
xfs_io -c "reflink file 0 53752752058368 1M" file
btrfs filesystem sync
And the sync will error out because we'll abort the transaction. The
magic values above are used because they generate hash collisions with
the first file in the main subvol.
The fix for this is to remove the hash value check from tree checker, as
we have no idea which offset ours should belong to.
Reported-by: Tuomas Lähdekorpi <tuomas.lahdekorpi@gmail.com>
Fixes: 0785a9aacf9d ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add EXTENT_DATA_REF check")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ add comment]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit 6d06b0ad94d3dd7e3503d8ad39c39c4634884611 upstream.
There are sectorsize alignment checks that are reported but then
check_extent_data_ref continues. This was not intended, wrong alignment
is not a minor problem and we should return with error.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Fixes: 0785a9aacf9d ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add EXTENT_DATA_REF check")
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 1a49a97df657c63a4e8ffcd1ea9b6ed95581789b upstream.
There's a missing return statement after an error is found in the
root_item, this can cause further problems when a crafted image triggers
the error.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210181
Fixes: 259ee7754b67 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add ROOT_ITEM check")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 85d07fbe09efd1c529ff3e025e2f0d2c6c96a1b7 upstream.
If there's no parity and num_stripes < ncopies, a crafted image can
trigger a division by zero in calc_stripe_length().
The image was generated through fuzzing.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209587
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 1465af12e254a68706e110846f59cf0f09683184 upstream.
Commit 259ee7754b67 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add ROOT_ITEM check")
introduced btrfs root item size check, however btrfs root item has two
versions, the legacy one which just ends before generation_v2 member, is
smaller than current btrfs root item size.
This caused btrfs kernel to reject valid but old tree root leaves.
Fix this problem by also allowing legacy root item, since kernel can
already handle them pretty well and upgrade to newer root item format
when needed.
Reported-by: Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>
Fixes: 259ee7754b67 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add ROOT_ITEM check")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Tested-By: Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit f6d2a5c263afca84646cf3300dc13061bedbd99e ]
Inspired by btrfs-progs github issue #208, where chunk item in chunk
tree has invalid num_stripes (0).
Although that can already be caught by current btrfs_check_chunk_valid(),
that function doesn't really check item size as it needs to handle chunk
item in super block sys_chunk_array().
This patch will add two extra checks for chunk items in chunk tree:
- Basic chunk item size
If the item is smaller than btrfs_chunk (which already contains one
stripe), exit right now as reading num_stripes may even go beyond
eb boundary.
- Item size check against num_stripes
If item size doesn't match with calculated chunk size, then either the
item size or the num_stripes is corrupted. Error out anyway.
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
commit f96d6960abbc52e26ad124e69e6815283d3e1674 upstream.
The error message for inode transid is the same as for inode generation,
which makes us unable to detect the real problem.
Reported-by: Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com>
Fixes: 496245cac57e ("btrfs: tree-checker: Verify inode item")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+
Reviewed-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit ad1d8c439978ede77cbf73cbdd11bafe810421a5 upstream.
Having checksum items, either on the checksums tree or in a log tree, that
represent ranges that overlap each other is a sign of a corruption. Such
case confuses the checksum lookup code and can result in not being able to
find checksums or find stale checksums.
So add a check for such case.
This is motivated by a recent fix for a case where a log tree had checksum
items covering ranges that overlap each other due to extent cloning, and
resulted in missing checksums after replaying the log tree. It also helps
detect past issues such as stale and outdated checksums due to overlapping,
commit 27b9a8122ff71a ("Btrfs: fix csum tree corruption, duplicate and
outdated checksums").
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[BUG]
The following script will cause false alert on devid check.
#!/bin/bash
dev1=/dev/test/test
dev2=/dev/test/scratch1
mnt=/mnt/btrfs
umount $dev1 &> /dev/null
umount $dev2 &> /dev/null
umount $mnt &> /dev/null
mkfs.btrfs -f $dev1
mount $dev1 $mnt
_fail()
{
echo "!!! FAILED !!!"
exit 1
}
for ((i = 0; i < 4096; i++)); do
btrfs dev add -f $dev2 $mnt || _fail
btrfs dev del $dev1 $mnt || _fail
dev_tmp=$dev1
dev1=$dev2
dev2=$dev_tmp
done
[CAUSE]
Tree-checker uses BTRFS_MAX_DEVS() and BTRFS_MAX_DEVS_SYS_CHUNK() as
upper limit for devid. But we can have devid holes just like above
script.
So the check for devid is incorrect and could cause false alert.
[FIX]
Just remove the whole devid check. We don't have any hard requirement
for devid assignment.
Furthermore, even devid could get corrupted by a bitflip, we still have
dev extents verification at mount time, so corrupted data won't sneak
in.
This fixes fstests btrfs/194.
Reported-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Fixes: ab4ba2e13346 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Verify dev item")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.2+
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
EXTENT_DATA_REF is a little like DIR_ITEM which contains hash in its
key->offset.
This patch will check the following contents:
- Key->objectid
Basic alignment check.
- Hash
Hash of each extent_data_ref item must match key->offset.
- Offset
Basic alignment check.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
For TREE_BLOCK_REF, SHARED_DATA_REF and SHARED_BLOCK_REF we need to
check:
| TREE_BLOCK_REF | SHARED_BLOCK_REF | SHARED_BLOCK_REF
--------------+----------------+-----------------+------------------
key->objectid | Alignment | Alignment | Alignment
key->offset | Any value | Alignment | Alignment
item_size | 0 | 0 | sizeof(le32) (*)
*: sizeof(struct btrfs_shared_data_ref)
So introduce a check to check all these 3 key types together.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
This patch introduces the ability to check extent items.
This check involves:
- key->objectid check
Basic alignment check.
- key->type check
Against btrfs_extent_item::type and SKINNY_METADATA feature.
- key->offset alignment check for EXTENT_ITEM
- key->offset check for METADATA_ITEM
- item size check
Both against minimal size and stepping check.
- btrfs_extent_item check
Checks its flags and generation.
- btrfs_extent_inline_ref checks
Against 4 types inline ref.
Checks bytenr alignment and tree level.
- btrfs_extent_item::refs check
Check against total refs found in inline refs.
This check would be the most complex single item check due to its nature
of inlined items.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
This patch will introduce ROOT_ITEM check, which includes:
- Key->objectid and key->offset check
Currently only some easy check, e.g. 0 as rootid is invalid.
- Item size check
Root item size is fixed.
- Generation checks
Generation, generation_v2 and last_snapshot should not be greater than
super generation + 1
- Level and alignment check
Level should be in [0, 7], and bytenr must be aligned to sector size.
- Flags check
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203261
Reported-by: Jungyeon Yoon <jungyeon.yoon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Under certain conditions, we could have strange file extent item in log
tree like:
item 18 key (69599 108 397312) itemoff 15208 itemsize 53
extent data disk bytenr 0 nr 0
extent data offset 0 nr 18446744073709547520 ram 18446744073709547520
The num_bytes + ram_bytes overflow 64 bit type.
For num_bytes part, we can detect such overflow along with file offset
(key->offset), as file_offset + num_bytes should never go beyond u64.
For ram_bytes part, it's about the decompressed size of the extent, not
directly related to the size.
In theory it is OK to have a large value, and put extra limitation
on RAM bytes may cause unexpected false alerts.
So in tree-checker, we only check if the file offset and num bytes
overflow.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Having file extent items with ranges that overlap each other is a
serious issue that leads to all sorts of corruptions and crashes (like a
BUG_ON() during the course of __btrfs_drop_extents() when it traims file
extent items). Therefore teach the tree checker to detect such cases.
This is motivated by a recently fixed bug (race between ranged full
fsync and writeback or adjacent ranges).
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Allowing error injection for btrfs_check_leaf_full() and
btrfs_check_node() is useful to test the failure path of btrfs write
time tree check.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Commit 1ba98d086fe3 ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has
zero item") introduced comprehensive root owner checker.
However it's pretty expensive tree search to locate the owner root,
especially when it get reused by mandatory read and write time
tree-checker.
This patch will remove that check, and completely rely on owner based
empty leaf check, which is much faster and still works fine for most
case.
And since we skip the old root owner check, now write time tree check
can be merged with btrfs_check_leaf_full().
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
There is a report in kernel bugzilla about mismatch file type in dir
item and inode item.
This inspires us to check inode mode in inode item.
This patch will check the following members:
- inode key objectid
Should be ROOT_DIR_DIR or [256, (u64)-256] or FREE_INO.
- inode key offset
Should be 0
- inode item generation
- inode item transid
No newer than sb generation + 1.
The +1 is for log tree.
- inode item mode
No unknown bits.
No invalid S_IF* bit.
NOTE: S_IFMT check is not enough, need to check every know type.
- inode item nlink
Dir should have no more link than 1.
- inode item flags
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Btrfs-progs already have a comprehensive type checker, to ensure there
is only 0 (SINGLE profile) or 1 (DUP/RAID0/1/5/6/10) bit set for chunk
profile bits.
Do the same work for kernel.
Reported-by: Yoon Jungyeon <jungyeon@gatech.edu>
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202765
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[BUG]
For fuzzed image whose DEV_ITEM has invalid total_bytes as 0, then
kernel will just panic:
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000098
#PF error: [normal kernel read fault]
PGD 800000022b2bd067 P4D 800000022b2bd067 PUD 22b2bc067 PMD 0
Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
CPU: 0 PID: 1106 Comm: mount Not tainted 5.0.0-rc8+ #9
RIP: 0010:btrfs_verify_dev_extents+0x2a5/0x5a0
Call Trace:
open_ctree+0x160d/0x2149
btrfs_mount_root+0x5b2/0x680
[CAUSE]
If device extent verification finds a deivce with 0 total_bytes, then it
assumes it's a seed dummy, then search for seed devices.
But in this case, there is no seed device at all, causing NULL pointer.
[FIX]
Since this is caused by fuzzed image, let's go the tree-check way, just
add a new verification for device item.
Reported-by: Yoon Jungyeon <jungyeon@gatech.edu>
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202691
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Since we have btrfs_check_chunk_valid() in tree-checker, let's do
chunk item verification in tree-checker too.
Since the tree-checker is run at endio time, if one chunk leaf fails
chunk verification, we can still retry the other copy, making btrfs more
robust to fuzzed image as we may still get a good chunk item.
Also since we have done chunk verification in tree block read time, skip
the btrfs_check_chunk_valid() call in read_one_chunk() if we're reading
chunk items from leaf.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
To follow the standard behavior of tree-checker.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Old error message would be something like:
BTRFS error (device dm-3): invalid chunk num_stipres: 0
New error message would be:
Btrfs critical (device dm-3): corrupt superblock syschunk array: chunk_start=2097152, invalid chunk num_stripes: 0
Or
Btrfs critical (device dm-3): corrupt leaf: root=3 block=8388608 slot=3 chunk_start=2097152, invalid chunk num_stripes: 0
And for certain error message, also output expected value.
The error message levels are changed from error to critical.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
By function, chunk item verification is more suitable to be done inside
tree-checker.
So move btrfs_check_chunk_valid() to tree-checker.c and export it.
And since it's now moved to tree-checker, also add a better comment for
what this function is doing.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The typos accumulate over time so once in a while time they get fixed in
a large patch.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@gelma.net>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[BUG]
A completely valid btrfs will refuse to mount, with error message like:
BTRFS critical (device sdb2): corrupt leaf: root=2 block=239681536 slot=172 \
bg_start=12018974720 bg_len=10888413184, invalid block group size, \
have 10888413184 expect (0, 10737418240]
This has been reported several times as the 4.19 kernel is now being
used. The filesystem refuses to mount, but is otherwise ok and booting
4.18 is a workaround.
Btrfs check returns no error, and all kernels used on this fs is later
than 2011, which should all have the 10G size limit commit.
[CAUSE]
For a 12 devices btrfs, we could allocate a chunk larger than 10G due to
stripe stripe bump up.
__btrfs_alloc_chunk()
|- max_stripe_size = 1G
|- max_chunk_size = 10G
|- data_stripe = 11
|- if (1G * 11 > 10G) {
stripe_size = 976128930;
stripe_size = round_up(976128930, SZ_16M) = 989855744
However the final stripe_size (989855744) * 11 = 10888413184, which is
still larger than 10G.
[FIX]
For the comprehensive check, we need to do the full check at chunk read
time, and rely on bg <-> chunk mapping to do the check.
We could just skip the length check for now.
Fixes: fce466eab7ac ("btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.19+
Reported-by: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@e16-tech.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
block_group_err shows the group system as a decimal value with a '0x'
prefix, which is somewhat misleading.
Fix it to print hexadecimal, as was intended.
Fixes: fce466eab7ac6 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Although we have tree level check at tree read runtime, it's completely
based on its parent level.
We still need to do accurate level check to avoid invalid tree blocks
sneak into kernel space.
The check itself is simple, for leaf its level should always be 0.
For nodes its level should be in range [1, BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL - 1].
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
