Re: [PATCH 4.14 024/110] btrfs: use proper endianness accessors for super_copy

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 07:55:42PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote...
> 
> > 4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> > commit 3c181c12c431fe33b669410d663beb9cceefcd1b upstream.
> (...)
> 
> > If the filesystem is always used on a same endian host, this will not
> > be a problem.
> 
> >From my observations I cannot quite subscribe to that.
> 
> On big-endian systems, this change intruduces severe corruption,
> resulting in complete loss of the data on the used block device.
> 
> Steps to reproduce (tested on ppc/powerpc and parisc/hppa):
> 
> # mkfs.btrfs $DEV
> # mount $DEV /mnt/tmp/
> # umount /mnt/tmp/
> 
> This simple umount corrupts the file system:
> 
> # mount $DEV /mnt/tmp/
> mount: /mnt/tmp: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on $DEV, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.
> 
> # dmesg:
> BTRFS critical (device <dev>): unable to find logical 4294967296 length 4096
> BTRFS critical (device <dev>): unable to find logical 4294967296 length 4096
> BTRFS critical (device <dev>): unable to find logical 18102363734671360 length 16384
> BTRFS error (device <dev>): failed to read chunk root
> BTRFS error (device <dev>): open_ctree failed
> 
> Also fsck is of no help:
> 
> # btrfsck $DEV
> Couldn't map the block 18102363734671360
> No mapping for 18102363734671360-18102363734687744
> Couldn't map the block 18102363734671360
> bytenr mismatch, want=18102363734671360, have=0
> ERROR: cannot read chunk root
> ERROR: cannot open file system
> 
> 
> Trying mount or fsck on a little-endian system does not help either. So
> I consider the data on that device lost - luckily I use btrfs only for
> files where a backup exists all the time.
> 
> 
> Reverting that change restored the previous error-free behaviour. I
> didn't check HEAD, i.e. v4.16-rc5, since the upstream commt was the last
> that affected these files. Still I could give this a try if anybody
> wishes so.

That sucks.  Can you test Linus's tree to verify the problem is there?
I'll gladly revert this if Linus's tree also gets the revert, I don't
want you to hit this when you upgrade to a newer kernel.

thanks,

greg k-h