| Message ID | 20191118055603.10011-1-Damenly_Su@gmx.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: block group: do not exclude bytenr adjacent to block group | expand |
On 18.11.19 г. 7:56 ч., damenly.su@gmail.com wrote: > From: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@gmx.com> > > while excluding super stripes from one block group, the logical bytenr > should not be excluded if the block group's start + length equals the > bytenr since the bytenr is not belong to the block group. > > This is insipred by same bugous code of btrfs-progs. > The fuzz image is rejected to be mounted by tree-checker, but not > bad to enhance the check in practice. > > Signed-off-by: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@gmx.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > index 1e521db3ef56..54f970f459f5 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > @@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ static int exclude_super_stripes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache) > while (nr--) { > u64 start, len; > > - if (logical[nr] > cache->start + cache->length) > + if (logical[nr] >= cache->start + cache->length) > continue; > > if (logical[nr] + stripe_len <= cache->start) > Is this check necessary at all, since btrfs_rmap_block already contains a check which ensures the physical address passed is withing the range of the given chunk, which in turn means all logical addresses derived in btrfs_rmap_block with: bytenr = chunk_start + stripe_nr * rmap_len; will be within this block group?
On 2019/11/18 5:56 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 18.11.19 г. 7:56 ч., damenly.su@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@gmx.com> >> >> while excluding super stripes from one block group, the logical bytenr >> should not be excluded if the block group's start + length equals the >> bytenr since the bytenr is not belong to the block group. >> >> This is insipred by same bugous code of btrfs-progs. >> The fuzz image is rejected to be mounted by tree-checker, but not >> bad to enhance the check in practice. >> >> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@gmx.com> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c >> index 1e521db3ef56..54f970f459f5 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c >> @@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ static int exclude_super_stripes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache) >> while (nr--) { >> u64 start, len; >> >> - if (logical[nr] > cache->start + cache->length) >> + if (logical[nr] >= cache->start + cache->length) >> continue; >> >> if (logical[nr] + stripe_len <= cache->start) >> > > Is this check necessary at all, since btrfs_rmap_block already contains > a check which ensures the physical address passed is withing the range > of the given chunk, which in turn means all logical addresses derived in > btrfs_rmap_block with: > > bytenr = chunk_start + stripe_nr * rmap_len; > > will be within this block group? > Yes, you're right. Drop this bad patch. Got sick, sorry for the late reply.
Drop those too, will send new version fixed by another method. On 2019/11/18 at 13:56, damenly.su@gmail.com wrote: > From: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@gmx.com> > > while excluding super stripes from one block group, the logical bytenr > should not be excluded if the block group's start + length equals the > bytenr since the bytenr is not belong to the block group. > > This is insipred by same bugous code of btrfs-progs. > The fuzz image is rejected to be mounted by tree-checker, but not > bad to enhance the check in practice. > > Signed-off-by: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@gmx.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > index 1e521db3ef56..54f970f459f5 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > @@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ static int exclude_super_stripes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache) > while (nr--) { > u64 start, len; > > - if (logical[nr] > cache->start + cache->length) > + if (logical[nr] >= cache->start + cache->length) > continue; > > if (logical[nr] + stripe_len <= cache->start) > -- > 2.23.0
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c index 1e521db3ef56..54f970f459f5 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c @@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ static int exclude_super_stripes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache) while (nr--) { u64 start, len; - if (logical[nr] > cache->start + cache->length) + if (logical[nr] >= cache->start + cache->length) continue; if (logical[nr] + stripe_len <= cache->start)