This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
btrfs: fix incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range
to the 6.4-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
btrfs-fix-incorrect-splitting-in-btrfs_drop_extent_map_range.patch
and it can be found in the queue-6.4 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From c962098ca4af146f2625ed64399926a098752c9c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:57:30 -0400
Subject: btrfs: fix incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range
From: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit c962098ca4af146f2625ed64399926a098752c9c upstream.
In production we were seeing a variety of WARN_ON()'s in the extent_map
code, specifically in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() when we have to call
add_extent_mapping() for our second split.
Consider the following extent map layout
PINNED
[0 16K) [32K, 48K)
and then we call btrfs_drop_extent_map_range for [0, 36K), with
skip_pinned == true. The initial loop will have
start = 0
end = 36K
len = 36K
we will find the [0, 16k) extent, but since we are pinned we will skip
it, which has this code
start = em_end;
if (end != (u64)-1)
len = start + len - em_end;
em_end here is 16K, so now the values are
start = 16K
len = 16K + 36K - 16K = 36K
len should instead be 20K. This is a problem when we find the next
extent at [32K, 48K), we need to split this extent to leave [36K, 48k),
however the code for the split looks like this
split->start = start + len;
split->len = em_end - (start + len);
In this case we have
em_end = 48K
split->start = 16K + 36K // this should be 16K + 20K
split->len = 48K - (16K + 36K) // this overflows as 16K + 36K is 52K
and now we have an invalid extent_map in the tree that potentially
overlaps other entries in the extent map. Even in the non-overlapping
case we will have split->start set improperly, which will cause problems
with any block related calculations.
We don't actually need len in this loop, we can simply use end as our
end point, and only adjust start up when we find a pinned extent we need
to skip.
Adjust the logic to do this, which keeps us from inserting an invalid
extent map.
We only skip_pinned in the relocation case, so this is relatively rare,
except in the case where you are running relocation a lot, which can
happen with auto relocation on.
Fixes: 55ef68990029 ("Btrfs: Fix btrfs_drop_extent_cache for skip pinned case")
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.14+
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/extent_map.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c
@@ -758,8 +758,6 @@ void btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(struct
if (skip_pinned && test_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED, &em->flags)) {
start = em_end;
- if (end != (u64)-1)
- len = start + len - em_end;
goto next;
}
@@ -827,8 +825,8 @@ void btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(struct
if (!split)
goto remove_em;
}
- split->start = start + len;
- split->len = em_end - (start + len);
+ split->start = end;
+ split->len = em_end - end;
split->block_start = em->block_start;
split->flags = flags;
split->compress_type = em->compress_type;
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
queue-6.4/btrfs-fix-incorrect-splitting-in-btrfs_drop_extent_map_range.patch
