Linux-BTRFS Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Josef Bacik <>
Cc: linux-btrfs <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5][v2] btrfs: fix hole corruption issue with !NO_HOLES
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:44:27 -0500
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 1/15/20 12:32 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:43 PM Josef Bacik <> wrote:
>> v1->v2:
>> - fixed a bug in 'btrfs: use the file extent tree infrastructure' that would
>>    result in 0 length files because btrfs_truncate_inode_items() was clearing the
>>    file extent map when we fsync'ed multiple times.  Validated this with a
>>    modified fsx and generic/521 that reproduced the problem, those modifications
>>    were sent up as well.
>> - dropped the RFC
>> ----------------- Original Message -----------------------
>> We've historically had this problem where you could flush a targeted section of
>> an inode and end up with a hole between extents without a hole extent item.
>> This of course makes fsck complain because this is not ok for a file system that
>> doesn't have NO_HOLES set.  Because this is a well understood problem I and
>> others have been ignoring fsck failures during certain xfstests (generic/475 for
>> example) because they would regularly trigger this edge case.
>> However this isn't a great behavior to have, we should really be taking all fsck
>> failures seriously, and we could potentially ignore fsck legitimate fsck errors
>> because we expect it to be this particular failure.
>> In order to fix this we need to keep track of where we have valid extent items,
>> and only update i_size to encompass that area.  This unfortunately means we need
>> a new per-inode extent_io_tree to keep track of the valid ranges.  This is
>> relatively straightforward in practice, and helpers have been added to manage
>> this so that in the case of a NO_HOLES file system we just simply skip this work
>> altogether.
>> I've been hammering on this for a week now and I'm pretty sure its ok, but I'd
>> really like Filipe to take a look and I still have some longer running tests
>> going on the series.  All of our boxes internally are btrfs and the box I was
>> testing on ended up with a weird RPM db corruption that was likely from an
>> earlier, broken version of the patch.  However I cannot be 100% sure that was
>> the case, so I'm giving it a few more days of testing before I'm satisfied
>> there's not some weird thing that RPM does that xfstests doesn't cover.
>> This has gone through several iterations of xfstests already, including many
>> loops of generic/475 for validation to make sure it was no longer failing.  So
>> far so good, but for something like this wider testing will definitely be
>> necessary.  Thanks,
> So a comment that applies to the whole patchset.
> On power failures we can now end up with non-prealloc extents beyond
> the disk_i_size after mounting the filesystem.
> Not entirely sure if it will give any potential problems other then
> non-reclaimed space for a long time (unless the file is truncated or
> written to or beyond the extent's offset), have you tested this
> scenario?
> I suppose the test cases from fstests that use dm's log writes target
> exercise this easily.

Yeah I've run it through xfstests a bunch and none of the log writes things blew up.

Keep in mind that this scenario can already happen, just not as easily.  The 
original btrfs_ordered_update_i_size() would only update i_size if the previous 
ordered extent had completed.  If it hadn't you would end up with a normal 
extent past i_size, and if you crashed at the right time you would be in this 
spot.  This patch only makes that case more likely to happen if you happen to do 
something like sync_file_range() in the middle of the dirty range.  Thanks,


      reply index

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-07 19:42 Josef Bacik
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs: use btrfs_ordered_update_i_size in clone_finish_inode_update Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:01   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: introduce the inode->file_extent_tree Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:10   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs: use the file extent tree infrastructure Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:12   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-15 17:20     ` Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:34       ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-16 12:46   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs: replace all uses of btrfs_ordered_update_i_size Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:13   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: delete the ordered isize update code Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:13   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-15 17:32 ` [PATCH 0/5][v2] btrfs: fix hole corruption issue with !NO_HOLES Filipe Manana
2020-01-15 18:44   ` Josef Bacik [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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