4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v4.19+
Reported-by: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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;
}
