Linux-BTRFS Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Qu Wenruo <>
To:, Qu Wenruo <>,, Filipe Manana <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] btrfs: trim: fix underflow in trim length to prevent access beyond device boundary
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 07:35:26 +0800
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2152 bytes --]

On 2020/7/31 下午10:08, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:29:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> @@ -4720,6 +4720,18 @@ int btrfs_shrink_device(struct btrfs_device *device, u64 new_size)
>>  	}
>>  	mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Also clear any CHUNK_TRIMMED and CHUNK_ALLOCATED bits beyond the
>> +	 * current device boundary.
>> +	 * This shouldn't fail, as alloc_state should only utilize those two
>> +	 * bits, thus we shouldn't alloc new memory for clearing the status.
> If this fails or not depends on implementation details of
> clear_extent_bits and this comment will get out of sync eventually, so I
> don't think it should be that specific.
> If the new_size is somewhere in the middle of an existing state, it'll
> need to be split anyway, no?

Nope. Because in alloc_state we only have two bits utilized,

Thus what we're doing is to clear all utilized bits.

> alloc_state |-----+++++|
> clear             |------------------------- ... (u64)-1|
> So we'd need to keep the state "-" and unset bits only from "+", and
> this will require a split.

In this case, we would only reduce the the size of the existing status,
or just remove it completely.

> But I still have doubts about just clearing the range, why are there any
> device->alloc_state entries at all after device is shrunk?

Because the alloc_state is mostly only utilized by trim facility, thus
existing functions won't bother clearing/setting it.

In this particular case, previous fstrim run would set the CHUNK_TRIMMED
bit for all unallocated range (except the super reserve).
Then shrink doesn't clear the exceed range, and cause problem.

Thus clearing the bit in btrfs_shrink_device() makes sense.

> Using
> clear_extent_bits here is not wrong if we look at the end result of
> clearing the range, but otherwise it leaves some state information
> and allocated memory behind.
Not that complex case, just plain not fully considered corner case.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

      reply index

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-31 11:29 Qu Wenruo
2020-07-31 14:08 ` David Sterba
2020-07-31 23:35   ` Qu Wenruo [this message]

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-BTRFS Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-btrfs/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-btrfs linux-btrfs/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-btrfs

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone