| Message ID | 20181123010636.19363-1-wqu@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: tree-checker: Don't check max block group size as current max chunk size limit is unreliable | expand |
Gentle ping. Please put this patch into current release as the new block group size limit check introduced in v4.19 is causing at least 2 reports in mail list. Thanks, Qu On 2018/11/23 上午9:06, Qu Wenruo wrote: > [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] > > 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> > --- > fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > index cab0b1f1f741..d8bd5340fbbc 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c > @@ -389,13 +389,11 @@ static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > > /* > * Here we don't really care about alignment since extent allocator can > - * handle it. We care more about the size, as if one block group is > - * larger than maximum size, it's must be some obvious corruption. > + * handle it. We care more about the size. > */ > - if (key->offset > BTRFS_MAX_DATA_CHUNK_SIZE || key->offset == 0) { > + if (key->offset == 0) { > block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot, > - "invalid block group size, have %llu expect (0, %llu]", > - key->offset, BTRFS_MAX_DATA_CHUNK_SIZE); > + "invalid block group size 0"); > return -EUCLEAN; > } > >
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:15:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Gentle ping. > > Please put this patch into current release as the new block group size > limit check introduced in v4.19 is causing at least 2 reports in mail list. I see, on the way to 4.20-rc with stable tags. Thanks.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:15:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Gentle ping. > > Please put this patch into current release as the new block group size > limit check introduced in v4.19 is causing at least 2 reports in mail list. BTW, if there's an urgent fix or patch that should be considered for current devel cycle, please note that in the subject like [PATCH for 4.20-rc] btrfs: ... to make it more visible.
On 2018/12/4 下午9:52, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 06:15:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> Gentle ping. >> >> Please put this patch into current release as the new block group size >> limit check introduced in v4.19 is causing at least 2 reports in mail list. > > BTW, if there's an urgent fix or patch that should be considered for > current devel cycle, please note that in the subject like > > [PATCH for 4.20-rc] btrfs: ... > > to make it more visible. > Great thanks for this hint! Just forgot we have such tag. Thanks, Qu
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c index cab0b1f1f741..d8bd5340fbbc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c @@ -389,13 +389,11 @@ static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, /* * Here we don't really care about alignment since extent allocator can - * handle it. We care more about the size, as if one block group is - * larger than maximum size, it's must be some obvious corruption. + * handle it. We care more about the size. */ - if (key->offset > BTRFS_MAX_DATA_CHUNK_SIZE || key->offset == 0) { + if (key->offset == 0) { block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot, - "invalid block group size, have %llu expect (0, %llu]", - key->offset, BTRFS_MAX_DATA_CHUNK_SIZE); + "invalid block group size 0"); return -EUCLEAN; }
[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] 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> --- fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)