From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245E6C04EB8 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74D820700 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:57:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1544108225; bh=MzA5iKNYccFloCOq7qddigWTtPNYL/7nsoJRAD+Fn+c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=lH6NTQN29xLjLl0Fe1d6Vrp7/HSvF5dAu8mSOmZ2/4eG/JJw3tNI0gAtiiFNzAv9W 0J1SRH4Vvd4W9Gkw3QfETbnZaXmOXPwf+z24RfIW3KomWVRTmdaQgfW+mpqKkqEysr AIbHHwYEU9LTyEC77/odB2sXdv/EeGTxXnxScjFs= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D74D820700 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726438AbeLFO5D (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:57:03 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47448 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729726AbeLFOnC (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:43:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50ECF2082B; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:43:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1544107381; bh=MzA5iKNYccFloCOq7qddigWTtPNYL/7nsoJRAD+Fn+c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=In+yPXFGhoxGg32uC+dTUyJ7XJP1bSaV9mTJhQmlGjapQ/euCfwJVgzm0P0stucbD dXOeRCyJxvhVWyasPeH108l3qZWhyELDWo+1ItycybNSnXY+OUKt7gtPH6plrHlo2i 0TWhpkyxC5cuB8RlnMudTjyrcyJ9h4+A6EXJKCBI= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Wang Yugui , Qu Wenruo , David Sterba Subject: [PATCH 4.14 40/55] btrfs: tree-checker: Dont check max block group size as current max chunk size limit is unreliable Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:39:14 +0100 Message-Id: <20181206143003.870816990@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.2 In-Reply-To: <20181206143001.749982936@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20181206143001.749982936@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Qu Wenruo commit 10950929e994c5ecee149ff0873388d3c98f12b5 upstream. [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] This has been reported several times as the 4.19 kernel is now being used. The filesystem refuses to mount, but is otherwise ok and booting 4.18 is a workaround. 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 Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c @@ -348,13 +348,11 @@ static int check_block_group_item(struct /* * 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; }