summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2019-12-29btrfs: tree-checker: Fix wrong check on max devidQu Wenruo
commit 8bb177d18f114358a57d8ae7e206861b48b8b4de upstream. [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> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
2019-10-05btrfs: Detect unbalanced tree with empty leaf before crashing btree operationsQu Wenruo
[ Upstream commit 62fdaa52a3d00a875da771719b6dc537ca79fce1 ] [BUG] With crafted image, btrfs will panic at btree operations: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:3894! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI CPU: 0 PID: 1138 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 5.0.0-rc8+ #9 RIP: 0010:__push_leaf_left+0x6b6/0x6e0 RSP: 0018:ffffc0bd4128b990 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffa0a4ab8f0e38 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: ffffa0a280000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffffa0a4b3814000 RBP: ffffc0bd4128ba38 R08: 0000000000001000 R09: ffffc0bd4128b948 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000240 R13: ffffa0a4b556fb60 R14: ffffa0a4ab8f0af0 R15: ffffa0a4ab8f0af0 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffa0a4b7a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f2461c80020 CR3: 000000022b32a006 CR4: 00000000000206f0 Call Trace: ? _cond_resched+0x1a/0x50 push_leaf_left+0x179/0x190 btrfs_del_items+0x316/0x470 btrfs_del_csums+0x215/0x3a0 __btrfs_free_extent.isra.72+0x5a7/0xbe0 __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x539/0x1120 btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xdb/0x1b0 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x52/0x950 ? start_transaction+0x94/0x450 transaction_kthread+0x163/0x190 kthread+0x105/0x140 ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction+0x560/0x560 ? kthread_destroy_worker+0x50/0x50 ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 Modules linked in: ---[ end trace c2425e6e89b5558f ]--- [CAUSE] The offending csum tree looks like this: checksum tree key (CSUM_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) node 29741056 level 1 items 14 free 107 generation 19 owner CSUM_TREE ... key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 85975040) block 29630464 gen 17 key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 89911296) block 29642752 gen 17 <<< key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 92274688) block 29646848 gen 17 ... leaf 29630464 items 6 free space 1 generation 17 owner CSUM_TREE item 0 key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 85975040) itemoff 3987 itemsize 8 range start 85975040 end 85983232 length 8192 ... leaf 29642752 items 0 free space 3995 generation 17 owner 0 ^ empty leaf invalid owner ^ leaf 29646848 items 1 free space 602 generation 17 owner CSUM_TREE item 0 key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 92274688) itemoff 627 itemsize 3368 range start 92274688 end 95723520 length 3448832 So we have a corrupted csum tree where one tree leaf is completely empty, causing unbalanced btree, thus leading to unexpected btree balance error. [FIX] For this particular case, we handle it in two directions to catch it: - Check if the tree block is empty through btrfs_verify_level_key() So that invalid tree blocks won't be read out through btrfs_search_slot() and its variants. - Check 0 tree owner in tree checker NO tree is using 0 as its tree owner, detect it and reject at tree block read time. Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202821 Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
2019-10-05btrfs: tree-checker: Add ROOT_ITEM checkQu Wenruo
[ Upstream commit 259ee7754b6793af8bdd77f9ca818bc41cfe9541 ] 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> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
2019-08-06btrfs: tree-checker: Check if the file extent end overflowsQu Wenruo
[ Upstream commit 4c094c33c9ed4b8d0d814bd1d7ff78e123d15d00 ] 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> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
2019-05-16Btrfs: tree-checker: detect file extent items with overlapping rangesFilipe Manana
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Allow error injection for tree-checkerQu Wenruo
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: remove unused parameter fs_info from CHECK_FE_ALIGNEDDavid Sterba
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Remove comprehensive root owner checkQu Wenruo
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_chunk_validDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_nodeDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_leaf_relaxedDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_leaf_fullDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_inode_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_dev_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in dev_item_errDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in chunk_errDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_leafDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_leaf_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_extent_data_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_block_group_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in block_group_errDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_dir_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in dir_item_errDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_csum_itemDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in file_extent_errDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in generic_errDavid Sterba
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the parameters. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Verify inode itemQu Wenruo
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Enhance chunk checker to validate chunk profileQu Wenruo
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Verify dev itemQu Wenruo
[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>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Check chunk item at tree block read timeQu Wenruo
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Make btrfs_check_chunk_valid() return EUCLEAN instead ↵Qu Wenruo
of EIO 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>
2019-04-29btrfs: tree-checker: Make chunk item checker messages more readableQu Wenruo
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>
2019-04-29btrfs: Move btrfs_check_chunk_valid() to tree-check.[ch] and export itQu Wenruo
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>
2018-12-17btrfs: Fix typos in comments and stringsAndrea Gelmini
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>
2018-12-04btrfs: tree-checker: Don't check max block group size as current max chunk ↵Qu Wenruo
size limit is unreliable [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>
2018-11-06btrfs: tree-checker: Fix misleading group system informationShaokun Zhang
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>
2018-10-15btrfs: tree-checker: Check level for leaves and nodesQu Wenruo
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>
2018-08-06btrfs: tree-checker: Detect invalid and empty essential treesQu Wenruo
A crafted image has empty root tree block, which will later cause NULL pointer dereference. The following trees should never be empty: 1) Tree root Must contain at least root items for extent tree, device tree and fs tree 2) Chunk tree Or we can't even bootstrap as it contains the mapping. 3) Fs tree At least inode item for top level inode (.). 4) Device tree Dev extents for chunks 5) Extent tree Must have corresponding extent for each chunk. If any of them is empty, we are sure the fs is corrupted and no need to mount it. Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199847 Reported-by: Xu Wen <wen.xu@gatech.edu> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Tested-by: Gu Jinxiang <gujx@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-08-06btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_itemQu Wenruo
A crafted image with invalid block group items could make free space cache code to cause panic. We could detect such invalid block group item by checking: 1) Item size Known fixed value. 2) Block group size (key.offset) We have an upper limit on block group item (10G) 3) Chunk objectid Known fixed value. 4) Type Only 4 valid type values, DATA, METADATA, SYSTEM and DATA|METADATA. No more than 1 bit set for profile type. 5) Used space No more than the block group size. This should allow btrfs to detect and refuse to mount the crafted image. Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199849 Reported-by: Xu Wen <wen.xu@gatech.edu> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Reviewed-by: Gu Jinxiang <gujx@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com> Tested-by: Gu Jinxiang <gujx@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-04-12btrfs: replace GPL boilerplate by SPDX -- sourcesDavid Sterba
Remove GPL boilerplate text (long, short, one-line) and keep the rest, ie. personal, company or original source copyright statements. Add the SPDX header. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-03-26btrfs: add more __cold annotationsDavid Sterba
The __cold functions are placed to a special section, as they're expected to be called rarely. This could help i-cache prefetches or help compiler to decide which branches are more/less likely to be taken without any other annotations needed. Though we can't add more __exit annotations, it's still possible to add __cold (that's also added with __exit). That way the following function categories are tagged: - printf wrappers, error messages - exit helpers Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-03-26btrfs: Remove custom crc32c init codeNikolay Borisov
The custom crc32 init code was introduced in 14a958e678cd ("Btrfs: fix btrfs boot when compiled as built-in") to enable using btrfs as a built-in. However, later as pointed out by 60efa5eb2e88 ("Btrfs: use late_initcall instead of module_init") this wasn't enough and finally btrfs was switched to late_initcall which comes after the generic crc32c implementation is initiliased. The latter commit superseeded the former. Now that we don't have to maintain our own code let's just remove it and switch to using the generic implementation. Despite touching a lot of files the patch is really simple. Here is the gist of the changes: 1. Select LIBCRC32C rather than the low-level modules. 2. s/btrfs_crc32c/crc32c/g 3. replace hash.h with linux/crc32c.h 4. Move the btrfs namehash funcs to ctree.h and change the tree accordingly. I've tested this with btrfs being both a module and a built-in and xfstest doesn't complain. Does seem to fix the longstanding problem of not automatically selectiong the crc32c module when btrfs is used. Possibly there is a workaround in dracut. The modinfo confirms that now all the module dependencies are there: before: depends: zstd_compress,zstd_decompress,raid6_pq,xor,zlib_deflate after: depends: libcrc32c,zstd_compress,zstd_decompress,raid6_pq,xor,zlib_deflate Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> [ add more info to changelog from mails ] Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-03-26btrfs: tree-checker: Replace root parameter with fs_infoQu Wenruo
When inspecting the error message with real corruption, the "root=%llu" always shows "1" (root tree), instead of the correct owner. The problem is that we are getting @root from page->mapping->host, which points the same btree inode, so we will always get the same root. This makes the root owner output meaningless, and harder to port tree-checker to btrfs-progs. So get rid of the false and meaningless @root parameter and replace it with @fs_info. To get the owner, we can only rely on btrfs_header_owner() now. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-01-22btrfs: tree-check: reduce stack consumption in check_dir_itemDavid Sterba
I've noticed that the updated item checker stack consumption increased dramatically in 542f5385e20cf97447 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add checker for dir item") tree-checker.c:check_leaf +552 (176 -> 728) The array is 255 bytes long, dynamic allocation would slow down the sanity checks so it's more reasonable to keep it on-stack. Moving the variable to the scope of use reduces the stack usage again tree-checker.c:check_leaf -264 (728 -> 464) Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-01-22btrfs: tree-checker: use %zu format string for size_tArnd Bergmann
The return value of sizeof() is of type size_t, so we must print it using the %z format modifier rather than %l to avoid this warning on some architectures: fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function 'check_dir_item': fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:273:50: error: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'u32' {aka 'unsigned int'} [-Werror=format=] Fixes: 005887f2e3e0 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Add checker for dir item") Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2018-01-22btrfs: tree-checker: Add checker for dir itemQu Wenruo
Add checker for dir item, for key types DIR_ITEM, DIR_INDEX and XATTR_ITEM. This checker does comprehensive checks for: 1) dir_item header and its data size Against item boundary and maximum name/xattr length. This part is mostly the same as old verify_dir_item(). 2) dir_type Against maximum file types, and against key type. Since XATTR key should only have FT_XATTR dir item, and normal dir item type should not have XATTR key. The check between key->type and dir_type is newly introduced by this patch. 3) name hash For XATTR and DIR_ITEM key, key->offset is name hash (crc32c). Check the hash of the name against the key to ensure it's correct. The name hash check is only found in btrfs-progs before this patch. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@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>
2017-11-28btrfs: tree-checker: Fix false panic for sanity testQu Wenruo
[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>
2017-10-30btrfs: tree-checker: use %zu format string for size_tArnd Bergmann
We now get a harmless compile-time on 32-bit architectures: fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function 'check_extent_data_item': fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:189:70: error: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'unsigned int' [-Werror=format=] This changes the format string to use %zu instead of %lu for size_t. Fixes: c1f6520bf360 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Enhance output for check_extent_data_item") Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2017-10-30btrfs: tree-checker: Enhance output for check_extent_data_itemQu Wenruo
Output the invalid member name and its bad value, along with its expected value range or alignment. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2017-10-30btrfs: tree-checker: Enhance output for check_csum_itemQu Wenruo
Output the bad value and expected good value (or its alignment). Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> [ unindent long strings ] Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
generated by cgit 1.2.3-korg (git 2.39.0) at 2024-05-19 17:29:47 +0000