Re: [PATCH v3] ext4: Fix bug on in ext4_es_cache_extent as ext4_split_extent_at failed

[yebin <yebin10@huawei.com>]

On 2021/4/30 20:58, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 28-04-21 16:51:58, Ye Bin wrote:
>> We got follow bug_on when run fsstress with injecting IO fault:
>> [130747.323114] kernel BUG at fs/ext4/extents_status.c:762!
>> [130747.323117] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
>> ......
>> [130747.334329] Call trace:
>> [130747.334553]  ext4_es_cache_extent+0x150/0x168 [ext4]
>> [130747.334975]  ext4_cache_extents+0x64/0xe8 [ext4]
>> [130747.335368]  ext4_find_extent+0x300/0x330 [ext4]
>> [130747.335759]  ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x74/0x1178 [ext4]
>> [130747.336179]  ext4_map_blocks+0x2f4/0x5f0 [ext4]
>> [130747.336567]  ext4_mpage_readpages+0x4a8/0x7a8 [ext4]
>> [130747.336995]  ext4_readpage+0x54/0x100 [ext4]
>> [130747.337359]  generic_file_buffered_read+0x410/0xae8
>> [130747.337767]  generic_file_read_iter+0x114/0x190
>> [130747.338152]  ext4_file_read_iter+0x5c/0x140 [ext4]
>> [130747.338556]  __vfs_read+0x11c/0x188
>> [130747.338851]  vfs_read+0x94/0x150
>> [130747.339110]  ksys_read+0x74/0xf0
>>
>> If call ext4_ext_insert_extent failed but new extent already inserted, we just
>> update "ex->ee_len = orig_ex.ee_len", this will lead to extent overlap, then
>> cause bug on when cache extent.
> Thanks for the patch but I'm still not quite sure, how overlapping extents
> in the extent tree can lead to triggering BUG_ON(lblk + len - 1 < lblk) in
> ext4_es_cache_extent().  Can you ellaborate a bit more how this happens?
Assume that there is  extent  [10, 100] (ee_block=10 ee_len=91), call  
ext4_split_extent_at  split at  50,
we get two  extent [10, 49] and [50, 100], then call 
ext4_ext_insert_extent to insert  new  extent [50, 100],
if insert extent  successed, but call ext4_ext_dirty  failed(return 
-EROFS) as JBD maybe abort as io error.
Then fix  old extent  length with  old  value, so we get two extent   
[10, 100] (ee_block=10 ee_len=91) and
[50, 100](ee_block=50 ee_len=51).
If call ext4_cache_extent to cache above extents as follow:
prev = 0 lblk = 10 len = 91 --> cache  [10, 100] ---> prev = lblk + len 
= 101
prev = 101  lblk = 50 len = 51 --> prev != 0 && prev != lblk --> cache 
[prev = 101, lblk - prev = 50 - 101 = -51]
Obvious if call ext4_es_cache_extent cache  extent[101, -51] wil trigger 
"BUG_ON(end < lblk)" .
>> If call ext4_ext_insert_extent failed don't update ex->ee_len with old value.
>> Maybe there will lead to block leak, but it can be fixed by fsck later.
>>
>> After we fixed above issue with v2 patch, but we got the same issue.
>> ext4_split_extent_at:
>> {
>>          ......
>>          err = ext4_ext_insert_extent(handle, inode, ppath, &newex, flags);
>>          if (err == -ENOSPC && (EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT & split_flag)) {
>>              ......
>>              ext4_ext_try_to_merge(handle, inode, path, ex); ->step(1)
>>              err = ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + path->p_depth); ->step(2)
>>              if (err)
>>                  goto fix_extent_len;
>>          ......
>>          }
>>          ......
>> fix_extent_len:
>>          ex->ee_len = orig_ex.ee_len; ->step(3)
>>          ......
>> }
>> If step(1) have been merged, but step(2) dirty extent failed, then go to
>> fix_extent_len label to fix ex->ee_len with orig_ex.ee_len. But "ex" may not be
>> old one, will cause overwritten. Then will trigger the same issue as previous.
>> If step(2) failed, just return error, don't fix ex->ee_len with old value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/ext4/extents.c | 13 +++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> index 77c84d6f1af6..d4aa24a09d8b 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> @@ -3238,15 +3238,12 @@ static int ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
>>   		ex->ee_len = cpu_to_le16(ee_len);
>>   		ext4_ext_try_to_merge(handle, inode, path, ex);
>>   		err = ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + path->p_depth);
>> -		if (err)
>> -			goto fix_extent_len;
>> -
>> -		/* update extent status tree */
>> -		err = ext4_zeroout_es(inode, &zero_ex);
>> -
>> -		goto out;
>> -	} else if (err)
>> +		if (!err)
>> +		        /* update extent status tree */
>> +		        err = ext4_zeroout_es(inode, &zero_ex);
>> +	} else if (err && err != -EROFS) {
> I fail to see why EROFS is special here. Can you explain a bit please?
  V1 patch Ted suggest me  to fix length  only  when "err != -EROSFS". 
As if we don't
fix origin extent with old extent length, it will lead to block leak.
Ted said as follow:

If you don't want to do that, then a "do no harm" fix would be
something like this:

	...
	} else if (err == -EROFS) {
		return err;
	} else if (err)
		goto fix_extent_len;

So in the journal abort case, when err is set to EROFS, we don't try
to reset the length, since in theory the file system is read-only
already anyway.  However, in the ENOSPC case, we won't end up silently
leaking blocks that will be lost until the user somehow decides to run
fsck.


>>   		goto fix_extent_len;
>> +	}
>>   
>>   out:
>>   	ext4_ext_show_leaf(inode, path);
> 								Honza