@@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ void btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, u64 start, u64 end,
split->block_len = em->block_len;
split->orig_start = em->orig_start;
} else {
- const u64 diff = start + len - em->start;
+ const u64 diff = end - em->start;
split->block_len = split->len;
split->block_start += diff;
@@ -847,6 +847,11 @@ static int test_case_7(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
goto out;
}
+ if (em->block_start != SZ_32K + SZ_4K) {
+ test_err("em->block_start is %llu, expected 36K", em->block_start);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
free_extent_map(em);
read_lock(&em_tree->lock);
[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> --- Changelog: v2: - Remove the mention of possible corruption Thankfully this bug does not affect IO path thus it's fine. - Explain why c962098ca4af is the cause v3: - Fix an accidental removal of a newline --- fs/btrfs/extent_map.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)