| Message ID | 20180423093204.20943-1-wqu@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:32:04PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Commit 581c1760415c ("btrfs: Validate child tree block's level and first > key") introduced new @first_key parameter for read_tree_block(), however > caller in replace_path() is parasing wrong key to read_tree_block(). > > It should use parameter @first_key other than @key. > > Normally it won't expose problem as @key is normally initialzied to the > same value of @first_key we expect. > However in relocation recovery case, @key can be set to (0, 0, 0), and > since no valid key in relocation tree can be (0, 0, 0), it will cause > read_tree_block() to return -EUCLEAN and interrupt relocation recovery. > > Fix it by setting @first_key correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Added to next, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 23.04.2018 17:16, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:32:04PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> Commit 581c1760415c ("btrfs: Validate child tree block's level and first >> key") introduced new @first_key parameter for read_tree_block(), however >> caller in replace_path() is parasing wrong key to read_tree_block(). >> >> It should use parameter @first_key other than @key. >> >> Normally it won't expose problem as @key is normally initialzied to the >> same value of @first_key we expect. >> However in relocation recovery case, @key can be set to (0, 0, 0), and >> since no valid key in relocation tree can be (0, 0, 0), it will cause >> read_tree_block() to return -EUCLEAN and interrupt relocation recovery. >> >> Fix it by setting @first_key correctly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> > > Added to next, thanks. This is actually -rc2 material, right? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:20:06PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > On 23.04.2018 17:16, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:32:04PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> Commit 581c1760415c ("btrfs: Validate child tree block's level and first > >> key") introduced new @first_key parameter for read_tree_block(), however > >> caller in replace_path() is parasing wrong key to read_tree_block(). > >> > >> It should use parameter @first_key other than @key. > >> > >> Normally it won't expose problem as @key is normally initialzied to the > >> same value of @first_key we expect. > >> However in relocation recovery case, @key can be set to (0, 0, 0), and > >> since no valid key in relocation tree can be (0, 0, 0), it will cause > >> read_tree_block() to return -EUCLEAN and interrupt relocation recovery. > >> > >> Fix it by setting @first_key correctly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> > > > > Added to next, thanks. > > This is actually -rc2 material, right? Yes, adding to next is the 1st stage as we want to start testing. What will end up in the next rc pull is determined later if everything is fine. For some patches it's obvious that they're fixing a regression, the others are clear fixes that still qualify for rc. I can be more specific about the target branch, but this should be transparent to developers anyway once the patch is in the pool. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c index 00b7d3231821..b041b945a7ae 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c @@ -1841,7 +1841,7 @@ int replace_path(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, old_bytenr = btrfs_node_blockptr(parent, slot); blocksize = fs_info->nodesize; old_ptr_gen = btrfs_node_ptr_generation(parent, slot); - btrfs_node_key_to_cpu(parent, &key, slot); + btrfs_node_key_to_cpu(parent, &first_key, slot); if (level <= max_level) { eb = path->nodes[level];
Commit 581c1760415c ("btrfs: Validate child tree block's level and first key") introduced new @first_key parameter for read_tree_block(), however caller in replace_path() is parasing wrong key to read_tree_block(). It should use parameter @first_key other than @key. Normally it won't expose problem as @key is normally initialzied to the same value of @first_key we expect. However in relocation recovery case, @key can be set to (0, 0, 0), and since no valid key in relocation tree can be (0, 0, 0), it will cause read_tree_block() to return -EUCLEAN and interrupt relocation recovery. Fix it by setting @first_key correctly. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> --- fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)