On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 08:51:06PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:09 AM David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:12:03AM +0100, fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When using the logical to ino ioctl v2, if the flag to ignore offsets of
> > > file extent items (BTRFS_LOGICAL_INO_ARGS_IGNORE_OFFSET) is given, the
> > > backref walking code ends up not returning references for all file offsets
> > > of an inode that point to the given logical bytenr. This happens since
> > > kernel 6.2, commit 6ce6ba534418 ("btrfs: use a single argument for extent
> > > offset in backref walking functions"), as it mistakenly skipped the search
> > > for file extent items in a leaf that point to the target extent if that
> > > flag is given. Instead it should only skip the filtering done by
> > > check_extent_in_eb() - that is, it should not avoid the calls to that
> > > function (or find_extent_in_eb(), which uses it).
> > >
> > > So fix this by always calling check_extent_in_eb() and find_extent_in_eb()
> > > and have check_extent_in_eb() do the filtering only if the flag to ignore
> > > offsets is set.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 6ce6ba534418 ("btrfs: use a single argument for extent offset in backref walking functions")
> > > Reported-by: Vladimir Panteleev <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CAHhfkvwo=nmzrJSqZ2qMfF-rZB-ab6ahHnCD_sq9h4o8v+M7QQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > Tested-by: Vladimir Panteleev <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 6.2+
> > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > V2: Remove wrong check for a non-zero extent item offset.
> > > Apply the same logic at find_parent_nodes(), that is, search for file
> > > extent items on a leaf if the ignore flag is given - the filtering
> > > will be done later at check_extent_in_eb(). Spotted by Vladimir Panteleev
> > > in the thread mentioned above.
> >
> > Replaced in misc-next, thanks for the quick fix.
>
> Can you please remove it in the meanwhile?
> I noticed this isn't quite right and there's still two cases not
> working as they should be.
> I'll send a v3 after finishing some more tests, probably tomorrow if
> everything goes fine.
Ok, removed and pushed.
