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.
[PROBLEM]
There is a user report in the mail list, showing the following corrupted
tree blocks:
item 62 key (486836 DIR_ITEM 2543451757) itemoff 6273 itemsize 74
location key (4065004 INODE_ITEM 1073741824) type FILE
transid 21397 data_len 0 name_len 44
name: FILENAME
Note that location key, its offset should be 0 for all INODE_ITEMS.
This caused failed lookup of the inode.
[CAUSE]
That offending value, 1073741824, is 0x40000000. So this looks like a
memory bit flip.
[FIX]
This patch will enhance tree-checker to check location key of
DIR_INDEX/DIR_ITEM/XATTR_ITEM.
There are several different combinations needs to check:
- item_key.type == DIR_INDEX/DIR_ITEM
* location_key.type == BTRFS_INODE_ITEM_KEY
This location_key should follow the check in inode_item check.
* location_key.type == BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY
Despite the existing check, DIR_INDEX/DIR_ITEM can only points to
subvolume trees.
* All other keys are not allowed.
- item_key.type == XATTR_ITEM
location_key should be all 0.
Reported-by: Mike Gilbert <floppymaster@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>
ROOT_ITEM key check itself is not as simple as single line check, and
will be reused for both ROOT_ITEM and DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX location key
check, so refactor such check into check_root_key().
Also since we are here, fix a comment error about ROOT_ITEM offset,
which is transid of snapshot creation, not some "older kernel behavior".
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Inode key check is not as easy as several lines, and it will be called
in more than one location (INODE_ITEM check and
DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX/XATTR_ITEM location key check).
So here refactor such check into check_inode_key(). And add extra
checks for XATTR_ITEM.
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The @fs_info parameter can be extracted from extent_buffer structure,
and there are already some wrappers getting rid of the @fs_info
parameter.
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
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>
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 27b9a8122f ("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>
Argument BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_INLINE_DATA_START is defined as offsetof(),
which returns type size_t, so we need %zu instead of %lu.
This fixes a build warning on 32-bit ARM:
../fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function 'check_extent_data_item':
../fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:230:43: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'unsigned int' [-Wformat=]
230 | "invalid item size, have %u expect [%lu, %u)",
| ~~^
| long unsigned int
| %u
Fixes: 153a6d2999 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Check item size before reading file extent type")
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
In check_extent_data_item(), we read file extent type without verifying
if the item size is valid.
Add such check to ensure the file extent type we read is correct.
The check is not as accurate as we need to cover both inline and regular
extents, so it only checks if the item size is larger or equal to inline
header.
So the existing size checks on inline/regular extents are still needed.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
All accessors defined by BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS contain _stack_ in the
name, the block group ones were not following that scheme, so let's
switch them.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The compression type upper limit constant is the same as the last value
and this is confusing. In order to keep coding style consistent, use
BTRFS_NR_COMPRESS_TYPES as the total number that follows the idom of
'NR' being one more than the last value.
Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Use enum to replace macro definitions of extent types.
Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Refactor the check for prev_key->objectid of the following key types
into one function, check_prev_ino():
- EXTENT_DATA
- INODE_REF
- DIR_INDEX
- DIR_ITEM
- XATTR_ITEM
Also add the check of prev_key for INODE_REF.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Replace is_power_of_2 with the helper that is self-documenting and
remove the open coded call in alloc_profile_is_valid.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
For INODE_REF we will check:
- Objectid (ino) against previous key
To detect missing INODE_ITEM.
- No overflow/padding in the data payload
Much like DIR_ITEM, but with less members to 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 the following items, key->objectid is inode number:
- DIR_ITEM
- DIR_INDEX
- XATTR_ITEM
- EXTENT_DATA
- INODE_REF
So in the subvolume tree, such items must have its previous item share the
same objectid, e.g.:
(257 INODE_ITEM 0)
(257 DIR_INDEX xxx)
(257 DIR_ITEM xxx)
(258 INODE_ITEM 0)
(258 INODE_REF 0)
(258 XATTR_ITEM 0)
(258 EXTENT_DATA 0)
But if we have the following sequence, then there is definitely
something wrong, normally some INODE_ITEM is missing, like:
(257 INODE_ITEM 0)
(257 DIR_INDEX xxx)
(257 DIR_ITEM xxx)
(258 XATTR_ITEM 0) <<< objecitd suddenly changed to 258
(258 EXTENT_DATA 0)
So just by checking the previous key for above inode based key types, we
can detect a missing inode item.
For INODE_REF key type, the check will be added along with INODE_REF
checker.
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[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: ab4ba2e133 ("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 1ba98d086f ("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>
