On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:07:20AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:41:54PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:21:45PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> The patch below does not apply to the 5.6-stable tree.
> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
>
> > From ab9b2c7b32e6be53cac2e23f5b2db66815a7d972 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:47:30 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: handle logged extent failure properly
>
> If we're allocating a logged extent we attempt to insert an extent
> record for the file extent directly. We increase
> space_info->bytes_reserved, because the extent entry addition will call
> btrfs_update_block_group(), which will convert the ->bytes_reserved to
> ->bytes_used. However if we fail at any point while inserting the
> extent entry we will bail and leave space on ->bytes_reserved, which
> will trigger a WARN_ON() on umount. Fix this by pinning the space if we
> fail to insert, which is what happens in every other failure case that
> involves adding the extent entry.
>
> CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.4+
> Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Greg, I've noticed that you've fixed it up for 5.5 and 5.4 but no for
5.6? I've queued it up for 5.6 as well.
I didn't include this in 5.5 or 5.4, so please queue it up in those two
trees as well.
Hm, looking at the patch:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index a7bc66121330e..219ac9990513e 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -4431,7 +4431,7 @@ int btrfs_alloc_logged_file_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
ret = alloc_reserved_file_extent(trans, 0, root_objectid, 0, owner,
offset, ins, 1);
if (ret)
- btrfs_pin_extent(fs_info, ins->objectid, ins->offset, 1);
+ btrfs_pin_extent(trans, ins->objectid, ins->offset, 1);
btrfs_put_block_group(block_group);
return ret;
}
It changes the var and type used to call btrfs_pin_extent() without
changing the declaration of btrfs_pin_extent() itself - which is weird.
The change to btrfs_pin_extent() was done in b25c36f84b59 ("btrfs: Make
btrfs_pin_extent take trans handle"), but then I'm confused how this
patch on it's own fixes anything but a build issue - which makes the
commit message confusing :)
Maybe one of the btrfs folks could clarify?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
