The patch below does not apply to the 6.1-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>. To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands: git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.1.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x fe1c6c7acce10baf9521d6dccc17268d91ee2305 # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>' --in-reply-to '2024042906-stapling-dosage-67ad@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.1.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: fe1c6c7acce1 ("btrfs: fix wrong block_start calculation for btrfs_drop_extent_map_range()") 92e1229b204d ("btrfs: tests: test invalid splitting when skipping pinned drop extent_map") f345dbdf2c9c ("btrfs: tests: add a test for btrfs_add_extent_mapping") 89c3760428db ("btrfs: tests: add extent_map tests for dropping with odd layouts") thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From fe1c6c7acce10baf9521d6dccc17268d91ee2305 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 20:32:34 +0930 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix wrong block_start calculation for btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() [BUG] During my extent_map cleanup/refactor, with extra sanity checks, extent-map-tests::test_case_7() would not pass the checks. The problem is, after btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(), the resulted extent_map has a @block_start way too large. Meanwhile my btrfs_file_extent_item based members are returning a correct @disk_bytenr/@offset combination. The extent map layout looks like this: 0 16K 32K 48K | PINNED | | Regular | The regular em at [32K, 48K) also has 32K @block_start. Then drop range [0, 36K), which should shrink the regular one to be [36K, 48K). However the @block_start is incorrect, we expect 32K + 4K, but got 52K. [CAUSE] Inside btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() function, if we hit an extent_map that covers the target range but is still beyond it, we need to split that extent map into half: |<-- drop range -->| |<----- existing extent_map --->| And if the extent map is not compressed, we need to forward extent_map::block_start by the difference between the end of drop range and the extent map start. However in that particular case, the difference is calculated using (start + len - em->start). The problem is @start can be modified if the drop range covers any pinned extent. This leads to wrong calculation, and would be caught by my later extent_map sanity checks, which checks the em::block_start against btrfs_file_extent_item::disk_bytenr + btrfs_file_extent_item::offset. This is a regression caused by commit c962098ca4af ("btrfs: fix incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range"), which removed the @len update for pinned extents. [FIX] Fix it by avoiding using @start completely, and use @end - em->start instead, which @end is exclusive bytenr number. And update the test case to verify the @block_start to prevent such problem from happening. Thankfully this is not going to lead to any data corruption, as IO path does not utilize btrfs_drop_extent_map_range() with @skip_pinned set. So this fix is only here for the sake of consistency/correctness. CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 6.5+ Fixes: c962098ca4af ("btrfs: fix incorrect splitting in btrfs_drop_extent_map_range") Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c index 445f7716f1e2..24a048210b15 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c @@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ void btrfs_drop_extent_map_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, u64 start, u64 end, split->block_len = em->block_len; split->orig_start = em->orig_start; } else { - const u64 diff = start + len - em->start; + const u64 diff = end - em->start; split->block_len = split->len; split->block_start += diff; diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c index 253cce7ffecf..47b5d301038e 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/tests/extent-map-tests.c @@ -847,6 +847,11 @@ static int test_case_7(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) goto out; } + if (em->block_start != SZ_32K + SZ_4K) { + test_err("em->block_start is %llu, expected 36K", em->block_start); + goto out; + } + free_extent_map(em); read_lock(&em_tree->lock);
