Btrfs doesn't check whether the tree block respects the root owner.
This means, if a tree block referred by a parent in extent tree, but has
owner of 5, btrfs can still continue reading the tree block, as long as
it doesn't trigger other sanity checks.
Normally this is fine, but combined with the empty tree check in
check_leaf(), if we hit an empty extent tree, but the root node has
csum tree owner, we can let such extent buffer to sneak in.
Shrink the hole by:
- Do extra eb owner check at tree read time
- Make sure the root owner extent buffer exactly matches the root id.
Unfortunately we can't yet completely patch the hole, there are several
call sites can't pass all info we need:
- For reloc/log trees
Their owner is key::offset, not key::objectid.
We need the full root key to do that accurate check.
For now, we just skip the ownership check for those trees.
- For add_data_references() of relocation
That call site doesn't have any parent/ownership info, as all the
bytenrs are all from btrfs_find_all_leafs().
- For direct backref items walk
Direct backref items records the parent bytenr directly, thus unlike
indirect backref item, we don't do a full tree search.
Thus in that case, we don't have full parent owner to check.
For the later two cases, they all pass 0 as @owner_root, thus we can
skip those cases if @owner_root is 0.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
By function, chunk item verification is more suitable to be done inside
tree-checker.
So move btrfs_check_chunk_valid() to tree-checker.c and export it.
And since it's now moved to tree-checker, also add a better comment for
what this function is doing.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Remove GPL boilerplate text (long, short, one-line) and keep the rest,
ie. personal, company or original source copyright statements. Add the
SPDX header.
Unify the include protection macros to match the file names.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
When inspecting the error message with real corruption, the "root=%llu"
always shows "1" (root tree), instead of the correct owner.
The problem is that we are getting @root from page->mapping->host, which
points the same btree inode, so we will always get the same root.
This makes the root owner output meaningless, and harder to port
tree-checker to btrfs-progs.
So get rid of the false and meaningless @root parameter and replace it
with @fs_info.
To get the owner, we can only rely on btrfs_header_owner() now.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[BUG]
If we run btrfs with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS=y, it will
instantly cause kernel panic like:
------
...
assertion failed: 0, file: fs/btrfs/disk-io.c, line: 3853
...
Call Trace:
btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty+0x187/0x1f0 [btrfs]
setup_items_for_insert+0x385/0x650 [btrfs]
__btrfs_drop_extents+0x129a/0x1870 [btrfs]
...
-----
[Cause]
Btrfs will call btrfs_check_leaf() in btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() to check
if the leaf is valid with CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS=y.
However quite some btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() callers(*) don't really
initialize its item data but only initialize its item pointers, leaving
item data uninitialized.
This makes tree-checker catch uninitialized data as error, causing
such panic.
*: These callers include but not limited to
setup_items_for_insert()
btrfs_split_item()
btrfs_expand_item()
[Fix]
Add a new parameter @check_item_data to btrfs_check_leaf().
With @check_item_data set to false, item data check will be skipped and
fallback to old btrfs_check_leaf() behavior.
So we can still get early warning if we screw up item pointers, and
avoid false panic.
Cc: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Lakshmipathi.G <lakshmipathi.g@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
It's no doubt the comprehensive tree block checker will become larger,
so moving them into their own files is quite reasonable.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
[ wording adjustments ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
