From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Don't check max block group size as current max chunk size limit is unreliable
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 09:06:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181123010636.19363-1-wqu@suse.com> (raw)
[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;
}
--
2.19.1
next reply other threads:[~2018-11-23 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-23 1:06 Qu Wenruo [this message]
2018-12-04 10:15 ` [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Don't check max block group size as current max chunk size limit is unreliable Qu Wenruo
2018-12-04 13:38 ` David Sterba
2018-12-04 13:52 ` David Sterba
2018-12-04 14:10 ` Qu Wenruo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181123010636.19363-1-wqu@suse.com \
--to=wqu@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).