Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr

[Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>]

On 2022/4/11 14:14, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 01:06:09PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:10 AM Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022/4/9 14:42, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:46 AM Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2022/4/9 9:34, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
>>>>>>>> DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
>>>>>>>> blkaddr is in the range or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
>>>>>>> It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> related issue? Can you explain a little?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you mean if this warning occurs, any other issues or crash
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean have you seen any warning info printed in the path of
>>>>> f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr() before applying this patch, and if so, w/ what
>>>>> reproducer? or you just figure out this patch from perspective of code
>>>>> review?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I have seen both warning information from Syzbot [1] and my local
>>>> syzkaller instance.
>>>>
>>>> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if the following condition is satisfied,
>>>> i.e., blkaddr is not in the right range [2], it will directly invoke
>>>> one WARN_ON.
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(blkaddr >= MAX_BLKADDR(sbi) ||
>>>>                    blkaddr < MAIN_BLKADDR(sbi))) {
>>>>
>>>> This is the case on Syzbot.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, it will jump into __is_bitmap_valid. And if the following
>>>> condition is satisfied [3], it will trigger another WARN_ON.
>>>>
>>>> exist = f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map);
>>>> if (!exist && type == DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE) {
>>>>
>>>> This appears in my local syzbot instance, but unfortunately it does
>>>> not get any reproducer.
>>>
>>> Oh, it occurs in syzbot test, I guess it is possible that f2fs prints such
>>> warning info after blkaddr of node/data block was fuzzed to invalid one.
>>>
>>> I prefer to keep WARN_ON() to catch more info of bugs found by non-fuzzed
>>> type test.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I am fine with both options. I can remove the WARN_ON in my local
>> syzkaller instance and continue fuzzing Linux kernel.
>>
>> +Dmitry Vyukov how do you think? If WARN_ON is kept, this crash will
>> occur on Syzbot from time to time.
> 
> WARN_ON is for kernel bugs; please refer to the documentation in
> include/asm-generic/bug.h.  If this is a kernel bug, then the kernel bug needs
> to be fixed.  Otherwise, the WARN_ON needs to be removed.

Alright, so how about using dump_stack() instead as suggested in doc?

Thanks,

> 
> - Eric