Searched hist:"73 aa8ea03ac94d2b46a41ceca7d71651531231b2" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/tests/ |
| H A D | extent-map-tests.c | diff 73aa8ea03ac94d2b46a41ceca7d71651531231b2 Tue Apr 09 06:02:34 CDT 2024 Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> btrfs: fix wrong block_start calculation for btrfs_drop_extent_map_range()
commit fe1c6c7acce10baf9521d6dccc17268d91ee2305 upstream.
[BUG]
During my extent_map cleanup/refactor, with extra sanity checks,
extent-map-tests::test_case_7() would not pass the checks.
The problem is, after btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(), the resulted
extent_map has a @block_start way too large.
Meanwhile my btrfs_file_extent_item based members are returning a
correct @disk_bytenr/@offset combination.
The extent map layout looks like this:
0 16K 32K 48K
| PINNED | | Regular |
The regular em at [32K, 48K) also has 32K @block_start.
Then drop range [0, 36K), which should shrink the regular one to be
[36K, 48K).
However the @block_start is incorrect, we expect 32K + 4K, but got 52K.
[CAUSE]
Inside btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() function, if we hit an extent_map
that covers the target range but is still beyond it, we need to split
that extent map into half:
|<-- drop range -->|
|<----- existing extent_map --->|
And if the extent map is not compressed, we need to forward
extent_map::block_start by the difference between the end of drop range
and the extent map start.
However in that particular case, the difference is calculated using
(start + len - em->start).
The problem is @start can be modified if the drop range covers any
pinned extent.
This leads to wrong calculation, and would be caught by my later
extent_map sanity checks, which checks the em::block_start against
btrfs_file_extent_item::disk_bytenr + btrfs_file_extent_item::offset.
This is a regression caused by commit c962098ca4af ("btrfs: fix
incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range"), which removed the
@len update for pinned extents.
[FIX]
Fix it by avoiding using @start completely, and use @end - em->start
instead, which @end is exclusive bytenr number.
And update the test case to verify the @block_start to prevent such
problem from happening.
Thankfully this is not going to lead to any data corruption, as IO path
does not utilize btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() with @skip_pinned set.
So this fix is only here for the sake of consistency/correctness.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.5+
Fixes: c962098ca4af ("btrfs: fix incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range")
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@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>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | extent_map.c | diff 73aa8ea03ac94d2b46a41ceca7d71651531231b2 Tue Apr 09 06:02:34 CDT 2024 Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> btrfs: fix wrong block_start calculation for btrfs_drop_extent_map_range()
commit fe1c6c7acce10baf9521d6dccc17268d91ee2305 upstream.
[BUG]
During my extent_map cleanup/refactor, with extra sanity checks,
extent-map-tests::test_case_7() would not pass the checks.
The problem is, after btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(), the resulted
extent_map has a @block_start way too large.
Meanwhile my btrfs_file_extent_item based members are returning a
correct @disk_bytenr/@offset combination.
The extent map layout looks like this:
0 16K 32K 48K
| PINNED | | Regular |
The regular em at [32K, 48K) also has 32K @block_start.
Then drop range [0, 36K), which should shrink the regular one to be
[36K, 48K).
However the @block_start is incorrect, we expect 32K + 4K, but got 52K.
[CAUSE]
Inside btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() function, if we hit an extent_map
that covers the target range but is still beyond it, we need to split
that extent map into half:
|<-- drop range -->|
|<----- existing extent_map --->|
And if the extent map is not compressed, we need to forward
extent_map::block_start by the difference between the end of drop range
and the extent map start.
However in that particular case, the difference is calculated using
(start + len - em->start).
The problem is @start can be modified if the drop range covers any
pinned extent.
This leads to wrong calculation, and would be caught by my later
extent_map sanity checks, which checks the em::block_start against
btrfs_file_extent_item::disk_bytenr + btrfs_file_extent_item::offset.
This is a regression caused by commit c962098ca4af ("btrfs: fix
incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range"), which removed the
@len update for pinned extents.
[FIX]
Fix it by avoiding using @start completely, and use @end - em->start
instead, which @end is exclusive bytenr number.
And update the test case to verify the @block_start to prevent such
problem from happening.
Thankfully this is not going to lead to any data corruption, as IO path
does not utilize btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() with @skip_pinned set.
So this fix is only here for the sake of consistency/correctness.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.5+
Fixes: c962098ca4af ("btrfs: fix incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range")
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@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>
|