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.
commit 69fc6cbbac542c349b3d350d10f6e394c253c81d upstream.
[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.
Cc: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Lakshmipathi.G <lakshmipathi.g@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[bwh: Backported to 4.9: adjust context]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 557ea5dd003d371536f6b4e8f7c8209a2b6fd4e3 upstream.
It's no doubt the comprehensive tree block checker will become larger,
so moving them into their own files is quite reasonable.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
[ wording adjustments ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[bwh: Backported to 4.9: The moved code is slightly different]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
