* [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr @ 2022-04-08 5:22 Dongliang Mu 2022-04-09 0:27 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-08 5:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu Cc: Dongliang Mu, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel 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. Fix this by removing WARN_ON. Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> --- fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", blkaddr, exist); set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); - WARN_ON(1); } return exist; } @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", blkaddr); set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); - WARN_ON(1); return false; } else { return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-08 5:22 [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-09 0:27 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-09 1:34 ` Dongliang Mu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2022-04-09 0:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dongliang Mu, Jaegeuk Kim Cc: Dongliang Mu, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel 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? Thanks, > > Fix this by removing WARN_ON. > > Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues > > Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> > --- > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, > f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", > blkaddr, exist); > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > - WARN_ON(1); > } > return exist; > } > @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", > blkaddr); > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > - WARN_ON(1); > return false; > } else { > return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-09 0:27 ` Chao Yu @ 2022-04-09 1:34 ` Dongliang Mu 2022-04-09 3:46 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-09 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu Cc: Dongliang Mu, Jaegeuk Kim, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel 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 behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with the corresponding reproducer. > > Thanks, > > > > > Fix this by removing WARN_ON. > > > > Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> > > --- > > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > > @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, > > f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", > > blkaddr, exist); > > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > > - WARN_ON(1); > > } > > return exist; > > } > > @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > > f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", > > blkaddr); > > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > > - WARN_ON(1); > > return false; > > } else { > > return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-09 1:34 ` Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-09 3:46 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-09 6:42 ` Dongliang Mu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2022-04-09 3:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dongliang Mu Cc: Dongliang Mu, Jaegeuk Kim, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel 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? Thanks, > behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the > WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with > the corresponding reproducer. > > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON. >>> >>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues >>> >>> Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- >>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, >>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", >>> blkaddr, exist); >>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>> - WARN_ON(1); >>> } >>> return exist; >>> } >>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", >>> blkaddr); >>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>> - WARN_ON(1); >>> return false; >>> } else { >>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-09 3:46 ` Chao Yu @ 2022-04-09 6:42 ` Dongliang Mu 2022-04-11 3:09 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-09 6:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu Cc: Dongliang Mu, Jaegeuk Kim, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel 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. [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c#L187 [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c#L135 > > Thanks, > > > behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the > > WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with > > the corresponding reproducer. > > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> > >>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON. > >>> > >>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues > >>> > >>> Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > >>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> > >>> --- > >>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > >>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > >>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, > >>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", > >>> blkaddr, exist); > >>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>> - WARN_ON(1); > >>> } > >>> return exist; > >>> } > >>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > >>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", > >>> blkaddr); > >>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>> - WARN_ON(1); > >>> return false; > >>> } else { > >>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-09 6:42 ` Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-11 3:09 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-11 5:06 ` Dongliang Mu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2022-04-11 3:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dongliang Mu Cc: Jaegeuk Kim, Dongliang Mu, linux-kernel, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel 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? Thanks, > > [1] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2Fbug%3Fextid%3D763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UVSSS9IknYLJHzqqJAN5HmPgJ8GNczvi6%2FuQf2n3vlY%3D&reserved=0 > [2] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L187&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Sf%2Bx8WCAXf5c4%2Bins46saTsTN5uNTrnIceAP3oCWnQw%3D&reserved=0 > [3] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L135&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ly%2FBL5oFAWZmXwbN6TaYCExroDE8%2Fsli1alaJwR4wvU%3D&reserved=0 > > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the >>> WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with >>> the corresponding reproducer. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON. >>>>> >>>>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>>>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, >>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", >>>>> blkaddr, exist); >>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>>> - WARN_ON(1); >>>>> } >>>>> return exist; >>>>> } >>>>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", >>>>> blkaddr); >>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>>> - WARN_ON(1); >>>>> return false; >>>>> } else { >>>>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-11 3:09 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu @ 2022-04-11 5:06 ` Dongliang Mu 2022-04-11 6:14 ` Eric Biggers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-11 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu, Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Jaegeuk Kim, Dongliang Mu, linux-kernel, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel 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. > > Thanks, > > > > > [1] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2Fbug%3Fextid%3D763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UVSSS9IknYLJHzqqJAN5HmPgJ8GNczvi6%2FuQf2n3vlY%3D&reserved=0 > > [2] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L187&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Sf%2Bx8WCAXf5c4%2Bins46saTsTN5uNTrnIceAP3oCWnQw%3D&reserved=0 > > [3] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L135&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ly%2FBL5oFAWZmXwbN6TaYCExroDE8%2Fsli1alaJwR4wvU%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the > >>> WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with > >>> the corresponding reproducer. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues > >>>>> > >>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@gmail.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 -- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > >>>>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644 > >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c > >>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr, > >>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d", > >>>>> blkaddr, exist); > >>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>>> - WARN_ON(1); > >>>>> } > >>>>> return exist; > >>>>> } > >>>>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > >>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u", > >>>>> blkaddr); > >>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >>>>> - WARN_ON(1); > >>>>> return false; > >>>>> } else { > >>>>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type); > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-11 5:06 ` Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-11 6:14 ` Eric Biggers 2022-04-11 9:53 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Eric Biggers @ 2022-04-11 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dongliang Mu Cc: Chao Yu, Dmitry Vyukov, Jaegeuk Kim, Dongliang Mu, linux-kernel, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel 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. - Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-11 6:14 ` Eric Biggers @ 2022-04-11 9:53 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-12 9:25 ` Dongliang Mu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2022-04-11 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Biggers, Dongliang Mu Cc: Dmitry Vyukov, Jaegeuk Kim, Dongliang Mu, linux-kernel, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr 2022-04-11 9:53 ` Chao Yu @ 2022-04-12 9:25 ` Dongliang Mu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Dongliang Mu @ 2022-04-12 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu Cc: Eric Biggers, Dmitry Vyukov, Jaegeuk Kim, Dongliang Mu, linux-kernel, syzbot+763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc, linux-f2fs-devel On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:53 PM Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> wrote: > > 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? I agree. Let's change WARN_ON to dump_stack(). > > Thanks, > > > > > - Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-04-12 10:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-04-08 5:22 [PATCH] fs: f2fs: remove WARN_ON in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr Dongliang Mu 2022-04-09 0:27 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-09 1:34 ` Dongliang Mu 2022-04-09 3:46 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-09 6:42 ` Dongliang Mu 2022-04-11 3:09 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu 2022-04-11 5:06 ` Dongliang Mu 2022-04-11 6:14 ` Eric Biggers 2022-04-11 9:53 ` Chao Yu 2022-04-12 9:25 ` Dongliang Mu
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).