* [PATCH 1/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add check for overlapping dev extents
2018-10-08 7:00 [PATCH 0/5] btrfs-progs: check: Detect invalid dev extents and device items Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 7:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 9:28 ` Su Yue
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs-progs: original check: Add ability to detect bad " Qu Wenruo
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-10-08 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Add such check at check_dev_item(), since at that timing we're also
iterating dev extents for dev item accounting.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
check/mode-lowmem.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/check/mode-lowmem.c b/check/mode-lowmem.c
index 1bce44f5658a..d387423639e6 100644
--- a/check/mode-lowmem.c
+++ b/check/mode-lowmem.c
@@ -4065,6 +4065,8 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
u64 dev_id;
u64 used;
u64 total = 0;
+ u64 prev_devid = 0;
+ u64 prev_dev_ext_end = 0;
int ret;
dev_item = btrfs_item_ptr(eb, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
@@ -4086,8 +4088,16 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
return REFERENCER_MISSING;
}
- /* Iterate dev_extents to calculate the used space of a device */
+ /*
+ * Iterate dev_extents to calculate the used space of a device
+ *
+ * Also make sure no dev extents overlap and end beyond device boundary
+ */
while (1) {
+ u64 devid;
+ u64 physical_offset;
+ u64 physical_len;
+
if (path.slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(path.nodes[0]))
goto next;
@@ -4099,7 +4109,25 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
ptr = btrfs_item_ptr(path.nodes[0], path.slots[0],
struct btrfs_dev_extent);
- total += btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], ptr);
+ devid = key.objectid;
+ physical_offset = key.offset;
+ physical_len = btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], ptr);
+
+ if (prev_devid == devid && physical_offset < prev_dev_ext_end) {
+ error(
+"dev extent devid %llu offset %llu len %llu overlap with previous dev extent end %llu",
+ devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
+ prev_dev_ext_end);
+ return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
+ }
+ if (physical_offset + physical_len > total_bytes) {
+ error(
+"dev extent devid %llu offset %llu len %llu is beyond device boundary %llu",
+ devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
+ total_bytes);
+ return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
+ }
+ total += physical_len;
next:
ret = btrfs_next_item(dev_root, &path);
if (ret)
--
2.19.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add check for overlapping dev extents
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add check for overlapping dev extents Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 9:28 ` Su Yue
2018-10-08 10:13 ` Qu Wenruo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Su Yue @ 2018-10-08 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs
On 10/8/18 3:00 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Add such check at check_dev_item(), since at that timing we're also
> iterating dev extents for dev item accounting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
> check/mode-lowmem.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/check/mode-lowmem.c b/check/mode-lowmem.c
> index 1bce44f5658a..d387423639e6 100644
> --- a/check/mode-lowmem.c
> +++ b/check/mode-lowmem.c
> @@ -4065,6 +4065,8 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> u64 dev_id;
> u64 used;
> u64 total = 0;
> + u64 prev_devid = 0;
> + u64 prev_dev_ext_end = 0;
Those two new variables aren't assigned anymore in the patch...
Thanks,
Su
> int ret;
>
> dev_item = btrfs_item_ptr(eb, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
> @@ -4086,8 +4088,16 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> return REFERENCER_MISSING;
> }
>
> - /* Iterate dev_extents to calculate the used space of a device */
> + /*
> + * Iterate dev_extents to calculate the used space of a device
> + *
> + * Also make sure no dev extents overlap and end beyond device boundary
> + */
> while (1) {
> + u64 devid;
> + u64 physical_offset;
> + u64 physical_len;
> +
> if (path.slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(path.nodes[0]))
> goto next;
>
> @@ -4099,7 +4109,25 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>
> ptr = btrfs_item_ptr(path.nodes[0], path.slots[0],
> struct btrfs_dev_extent);
> - total += btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], ptr);
> + devid = key.objectid;
> + physical_offset = key.offset;
> + physical_len = btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], ptr);
> +
> + if (prev_devid == devid && physical_offset < prev_dev_ext_end) {
> + error(
> +"dev extent devid %llu offset %llu len %llu overlap with previous dev extent end %llu",
> + devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
> + prev_dev_ext_end);
> + return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
> + }
> + if (physical_offset + physical_len > total_bytes) {
> + error(
> +"dev extent devid %llu offset %llu len %llu is beyond device boundary %llu",
> + devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
> + total_bytes);
> + return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
> + }
> + total += physical_len;
> next:
> ret = btrfs_next_item(dev_root, &path);
> if (ret)
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add check for overlapping dev extents
2018-10-08 9:28 ` Su Yue
@ 2018-10-08 10:13 ` Qu Wenruo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-10-08 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Su Yue, Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs
On 2018/10/8 下午5:28, Su Yue wrote:
>
>
> On 10/8/18 3:00 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> Add such check at check_dev_item(), since at that timing we're also
>> iterating dev extents for dev item accounting.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>> ---
>> check/mode-lowmem.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/check/mode-lowmem.c b/check/mode-lowmem.c
>> index 1bce44f5658a..d387423639e6 100644
>> --- a/check/mode-lowmem.c
>> +++ b/check/mode-lowmem.c
>> @@ -4065,6 +4065,8 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info
>> *fs_info,
>> u64 dev_id;
>> u64 used;
>> u64 total = 0;
>> + u64 prev_devid = 0;
>> + u64 prev_dev_ext_end = 0;
>
> Those two new variables aren't assigned anymore in the patch...
Oh, what I'm doing... (palm face
I'll fix this with the test case bug.
Thanks for reviewing,
Qu
>
> Thanks,
> Su
>> int ret;
>> dev_item = btrfs_item_ptr(eb, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
>> @@ -4086,8 +4088,16 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info
>> *fs_info,
>> return REFERENCER_MISSING;
>> }
>> - /* Iterate dev_extents to calculate the used space of a device */
>> + /*
>> + * Iterate dev_extents to calculate the used space of a device
>> + *
>> + * Also make sure no dev extents overlap and end beyond device
>> boundary
>> + */
>> while (1) {
>> + u64 devid;
>> + u64 physical_offset;
>> + u64 physical_len;
>> +
>> if (path.slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(path.nodes[0]))
>> goto next;
>> @@ -4099,7 +4109,25 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct
>> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> ptr = btrfs_item_ptr(path.nodes[0], path.slots[0],
>> struct btrfs_dev_extent);
>> - total += btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], ptr);
>> + devid = key.objectid;
>> + physical_offset = key.offset;
>> + physical_len = btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], ptr);
>> +
>> + if (prev_devid == devid && physical_offset < prev_dev_ext_end) {
>> + error(
>> +"dev extent devid %llu offset %llu len %llu overlap with previous dev
>> extent end %llu",
>> + devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
>> + prev_dev_ext_end);
>> + return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
>> + }
>> + if (physical_offset + physical_len > total_bytes) {
>> + error(
>> +"dev extent devid %llu offset %llu len %llu is beyond device boundary
>> %llu",
>> + devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
>> + total_bytes);
>> + return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
>> + }
>> + total += physical_len;
>> next:
>> ret = btrfs_next_item(dev_root, &path);
>> if (ret)
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/5] btrfs-progs: original check: Add ability to detect bad dev extents
2018-10-08 7:00 [PATCH 0/5] btrfs-progs: check: Detect invalid dev extents and device items Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add check for overlapping dev extents Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 7:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add dev_item check for used bytes and total bytes Qu Wenruo
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-10-08 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Unlike lowmem mode check, we don't have good place for original mode to
check overlap dev extents.
So this patch introduces a new function, btrfs_check_dev_extents(), to
handle possible bad dev extents.
Reported-by: Hans van Kranenburg <hans.van.kranenburg@mendix.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
check/main.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
diff --git a/check/main.c b/check/main.c
index bc2ee22f7943..ff9a785ce555 100644
--- a/check/main.c
+++ b/check/main.c
@@ -8224,6 +8224,99 @@ out:
return ret;
}
+/*
+ * Check if all dev extents are valid (not overlap nor beyond device
+ * boundary).
+ *
+ * Dev extents <-> chunk cross checking is already done in check_chunks().
+ */
+static int check_dev_extents(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
+{
+ struct btrfs_path path;
+ struct btrfs_key key;
+ struct btrfs_root *dev_root = fs_info->dev_root;
+ int ret;
+ u64 prev_devid = 0;
+ u64 prev_dev_ext_end = 0;
+
+ btrfs_init_path(&path);
+
+ key.objectid = 1;
+ key.type = BTRFS_DEV_EXTENT_KEY;
+ key.offset = 0;
+
+ ret = btrfs_search_slot(NULL, dev_root, &key, &path, 0, 0);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ error("failed to search device tree: %s", strerror(-ret));
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (path.slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(path.nodes[0])) {
+ ret = btrfs_next_leaf(dev_root, &path);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ error("failed to find next leaf: %s", strerror(-ret));
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (ret > 0) {
+ ret = 0;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ }
+
+ while (1) {
+ struct btrfs_dev_extent *dev_ext;
+ struct btrfs_device *dev;
+ u64 devid;
+ u64 physical_offset;
+ u64 physical_len;
+
+ btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path.nodes[0], &key, path.slots[0]);
+ if (key.type != BTRFS_DEV_EXTENT_KEY)
+ break;
+ dev_ext = btrfs_item_ptr(path.nodes[0], path.slots[0],
+ struct btrfs_dev_extent);
+ devid = key.objectid;
+ physical_offset = key.offset;
+ physical_len = btrfs_dev_extent_length(path.nodes[0], dev_ext);
+
+ dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
+ if (!dev) {
+ error("failed to find device with devid %llu", devid);
+ ret = -EUCLEAN;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (prev_devid == devid && prev_dev_ext_end > physical_offset) {
+ error(
+"dev extent devid %llu physical offset %llu overlap with previous dev extent end %llu",
+ devid, physical_offset, prev_dev_ext_end);
+ ret = -EUCLEAN;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (physical_offset + physical_len > dev->total_bytes) {
+ error(
+"dev extent devid %llu physical offset %llu len %llu is beyond device boudnary %llu",
+ devid, physical_offset, physical_len,
+ dev->total_bytes);
+ ret = -EUCLEAN;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ prev_devid = devid;
+ prev_dev_ext_end = physical_offset + physical_len;
+
+ ret = btrfs_next_item(dev_root, &path);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ error("failed to find next leaf: %s", strerror(-ret));
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (ret > 0) {
+ ret = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+out:
+ btrfs_release_path(&path);
+ return ret;
+}
+
static int check_chunks_and_extents(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
{
struct rb_root dev_cache;
@@ -8318,6 +8411,12 @@ again:
goto out;
}
+ ret = check_dev_extents(fs_info);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ err = ret;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
ret = check_chunks(&chunk_cache, &block_group_cache,
&dev_extent_cache, NULL, NULL, NULL, 0);
if (ret) {
--
2.19.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH 3/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add dev_item check for used bytes and total bytes
2018-10-08 7:00 [PATCH 0/5] btrfs-progs: check: Detect invalid dev extents and device items Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add check for overlapping dev extents Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs-progs: original check: Add ability to detect bad " Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 7:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs-progs: original " Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: Add test image for dev extents beyond device boundary Qu Wenruo
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-10-08 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Obviously, used bytes can't be larger than total bytes.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
check/mode-lowmem.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/check/mode-lowmem.c b/check/mode-lowmem.c
index d387423639e6..c50e34236ac8 100644
--- a/check/mode-lowmem.c
+++ b/check/mode-lowmem.c
@@ -4074,6 +4074,11 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
used = btrfs_device_bytes_used(eb, dev_item);
total_bytes = btrfs_device_total_bytes(eb, dev_item);
+ if (used > total_bytes) {
+ error("device %llu has incorrect used bytes %llu > total bytes %llu",
+ dev_id, used, total_bytes);
+ return ACCOUNTING_MISMATCH;
+ }
key.objectid = dev_id;
key.type = BTRFS_DEV_EXTENT_KEY;
key.offset = 0;
--
2.19.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/5] btrfs-progs: original check: Add dev_item check for used bytes and total bytes
2018-10-08 7:00 [PATCH 0/5] btrfs-progs: check: Detect invalid dev extents and device items Qu Wenruo
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Add dev_item check for used bytes and total bytes Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 7:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: Add test image for dev extents beyond device boundary Qu Wenruo
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-10-08 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
check/main.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/check/main.c b/check/main.c
index ff9a785ce555..12f12e18a83f 100644
--- a/check/main.c
+++ b/check/main.c
@@ -7938,6 +7938,12 @@ static int check_device_used(struct device_record *dev_rec,
struct device_extent_record *dev_extent_rec;
u64 total_byte = 0;
+ if (dev_rec->byte_used > dev_rec->total_byte) {
+ error("device %llu has incorrect used bytes %llu > total bytes %llu",
+ dev_rec->devid, dev_rec->byte_used, dev_rec->total_byte);
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+
cache = search_cache_extent2(&dext_cache->tree, dev_rec->devid, 0);
while (cache) {
dev_extent_rec = container_of(cache,
--
2.19.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH 5/5] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: Add test image for dev extents beyond device boundary
2018-10-08 7:00 [PATCH 0/5] btrfs-progs: check: Detect invalid dev extents and device items Qu Wenruo
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs-progs: original " Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 7:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-10-08 9:25 ` Su Yue
4 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-10-08 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Now two locations can detect such problem, either by device item
used/total bytes check, or by early dev extents check against device
boundary.
The image is hand-crafted image which uses DATA SINGLE chunk to feed
btrfs check.
As expected, as long as block group item, chunk item, device used bytes
matches, older btrfs check can't detect such problem.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
.../over_dev_boundary.img.xz | Bin 0 -> 1640 bytes
tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh | 19 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/over_dev_boundary.img.xz
create mode 100755 tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh
diff --git a/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/over_dev_boundary.img.xz b/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/over_dev_boundary.img.xz
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47cb2a707b0097e369dc088ed0549f847995f136
GIT binary patch
literal 1640
zcmV-u2ABE$H+ooF000E$*0e?f03iVu0001VFXf})3;zZsT>wRyj;C3^v%$$4d1oRm
zhA1@4%tH=9jYF%IQSpIUKDpjXLRl?q4p$q;1zsY^#9_Lx=#tbGm>@S#e2aqt!?0}y
z2BPO%4~c9Q5)jKFD7}DURarKL)`^j{f&YXRZFN7?s>sEHdzmSvX^98%kGi<&Wr9_8
zMn<v|L-7(}Rd54?!s&KC;)cj02cGeRIr%lcuq9CieJ^uw#gN*DXHbJJ_cG<`)tzRZ
z7iiTIj!JKmA%K$<jld>XynsC*B7}KE(<VQ-{-;Dq!XKG7h7GX&7)6g)x&zR#3}<?`
zerVp{I4Mf*_^y@gB;xwKVA$2}#YP`5&9z#2nY9o9cf1ycyoVvllLj)oQduMo;#&{T
zIb!}$))B*sP4(pSQi9Q{J{(5)Q<QJ$OUITVpN^z#lp9T;6uVqfPz2ufgR@hYgxVDk
z$x`_6#%t^+I@^z?>6w>*wfdb|tw$kt^y>W+TB*?pon1P+)#u#?6bSIG)TooJx~u$#
zf^+}xKw`BfI}6=717S~Q%LW1kwY`pz9H{`uNNNFOk2w!VauNEaMfoLj)Z<)!1?F60
zJ+OEA|4$a=9W#XX*l{EG!j^s}p|<!K+xHDwKHbAw($8~rad$^EE6=y6k#GR;ztm<w
z#ahHUL<!32tL3o;`MDc-;{87F5HD*@m)7W=TJ3!a%;uIK&c5L=OTnVyOUO^UUIHB>
z0i#_%$Q}d)-EE8#8O5<!nULUUAp@}=Z3Fh99&W?=NxIvgTZoJI!`e>^x$&V$8Y0l2
zc19e0Et3O3m`pMOqEkasL8VGE+u~2lZn>sRCRj169Z6mQ3*+`D+C#F1V7POV%<anZ
z6pCKQ@RVSrcwcVrOLZ?$xtD*57PoeA63&N-%XnJ(lp#DsxA)DEe4#pIJYN4L?KKfP
zZ}8xx1}Yb8^sa~PQ{dhJnXpW^iQQ1BG8H;hb)OypOm}Iq9~CEBz4Gap9nv3LG_$mV
zuM<Bz1a#)PJc(dveSQp!nMsohFT14>lx(9cB{WN*9OP%Zbd1VDn(S4HX^ad4-b~#H
z@9eUP4AAU`)yRf!k+rrrLSYfBSEi6RE#HtbqyPl<Sul{VKSX-iNqlnSZIysM_ebUb
z+~Xr5U&)ibJOQ1TBtnlIOb`Bkw2_-U5}W;WbJF=|BPlxM45+#vgP+{|6lPI<iIY$2
zG@MwL0dl;En#ny@be99^sS^qL;@t&ZhuFHzGD{dL39T{^4<C^+pb+1`aF>11S>RCH
zqvJbt22t`FmU^tmTb+7LtpybCB-x1lGSlrpVQ9|6WNBs~q*M-to<L(Acj@$J6%B0l
z9Z>1gD1l41oiy~}+O?!{68Jvim2*%BznW)@B=3<jH~jhjz|ZCMWv6gWeQlz-(KTzF
z7VI7(No$qk2aLjuYY$0hK-g)7yzAX9CKq>IH<h+68}6;%x(9&vmLt}L<5`-ww7;yQ
zm6u{#hw;;>)Xi1795q{#>sF*y^0T2@b$`Wqwch&z?BgN}IR9Ui&GZjmedlGizBd0T
z;!cs&L)hJFGsJmFaiUsYrN$c0^BLU^n-B%fagn+jR{?Dq+K%VyMG<I@0%=3<4suF^
z+%tHH6zc&0NeZ$t3@x+?%%xrBeXnAtt0~N?4^g>@pmAOShFY)k8zBxm@7Y<iJ#}$8
z5HO92kagkd`}eTFMbYHXeVZDQ@eRuAkeEv-e%8D9)<yk(Ez|qR1*ydekW&XPuTZ>D
zb^ZXU;<`+_B<hPLATaU}Ag4&`<8MrKV#`=!NVGD=jjWs!gw+dT#7~C>+IV{+A~1Ku
zWggqWQd{E<Q#S2aj1fMk8XA86;5b|mA_;!hpUN0QJ*Y?jrtXmDo_GK&$59E$0cwGr
z_$LwlZjpqrHefLrab;~b&y9-po!d<p<?(p{28(FQ{9snXm)a7~Ou+6=_!MzIPnklU
z?nMI-Yw`o)9vH>%hF}W2ArPwJ33zWP>MIe;YDN8WV+|+a4_c>yFN#ZGN00G#%3HYi
z4pePTnc{8k5CjwuN6hudRFcBkvB^&y3;pSFufzaaD`-;mPgJ~wr(<glZK${QAL#%9
m0001a5yH9Ybh`Bb0l^G_7ytl1uze%3#Ao{g000001X)@i`Wb5g
literal 0
HcmV?d00001
diff --git a/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh b/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh
new file mode 100755
index 000000000000..d2a82a65f631
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+#
+# Due to DUP chunk allocator bugs, we could allocate DUP chunks while its dev
+# extents could exist beyond device boundary.
+# And since all related items (block group, chunk, device used bytes) are all
+# valid, btrfs check won't report any error.
+#
+# This test case contain hand crafted minimal image, to test if btrfs check can
+# detect and report such error.
+
+source "$TEST_TOP/common"
+
+check_prereq btrfs
+
+check_image() {
+ run_check "$TOP/btrfs" check "$1"
+}
+
+check_all_images
--
2.19.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 5/5] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: Add test image for dev extents beyond device boundary
2018-10-08 7:00 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: Add test image for dev extents beyond device boundary Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-10-08 9:25 ` Su Yue
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Su Yue @ 2018-10-08 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs
On 10/8/18 3:00 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Now two locations can detect such problem, either by device item
> used/total bytes check, or by early dev extents check against device
> boundary.
>
> The image is hand-crafted image which uses DATA SINGLE chunk to feed
> btrfs check.
> As expected, as long as block group item, chunk item, device used bytes
> matches, older btrfs check can't detect such problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
> .../over_dev_boundary.img.xz | Bin 0 -> 1640 bytes
> tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh | 19 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/over_dev_boundary.img.xz
> create mode 100755 tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh
>
> diff --git a/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/over_dev_boundary.img.xz b/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/over_dev_boundary.img.xz
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47cb2a707b0097e369dc088ed0549f847995f136
> GIT binary patch
> literal 1640
> zcmV-u2ABE$H+ooF000E$*0e?f03iVu0001VFXf})3;zZsT>wRyj;C3^v%$$4d1oRm
> zhA1@4%tH=9jYF%IQSpIUKDpjXLRl?q4p$q;1zsY^#9_Lx=#tbGm>@S#e2aqt!?0}y
> z2BPO%4~c9Q5)jKFD7}DURarKL)`^j{f&YXRZFN7?s>sEHdzmSvX^98%kGi<&Wr9_8
> zMn<v|L-7(}Rd54?!s&KC;)cj02cGeRIr%lcuq9CieJ^uw#gN*DXHbJJ_cG<`)tzRZ
> z7iiTIj!JKmA%K$<jld>XynsC*B7}KE(<VQ-{-;Dq!XKG7h7GX&7)6g)x&zR#3}<?`
> zerVp{I4Mf*_^y@gB;xwKVA$2}#YP`5&9z#2nY9o9cf1ycyoVvllLj)oQduMo;#&{T
> zIb!}$))B*sP4(pSQi9Q{J{(5)Q<QJ$OUITVpN^z#lp9T;6uVqfPz2ufgR@hYgxVDk
> z$x`_6#%t^+I@^z?>6w>*wfdb|tw$kt^y>W+TB*?pon1P+)#u#?6bSIG)TooJx~u$#
> zf^+}xKw`BfI}6=717S~Q%LW1kwY`pz9H{`uNNNFOk2w!VauNEaMfoLj)Z<)!1?F60
> zJ+OEA|4$a=9W#XX*l{EG!j^s}p|<!K+xHDwKHbAw($8~rad$^EE6=y6k#GR;ztm<w
> z#ahHUL<!32tL3o;`MDc-;{87F5HD*@m)7W=TJ3!a%;uIK&c5L=OTnVyOUO^UUIHB>
> z0i#_%$Q}d)-EE8#8O5<!nULUUAp@}=Z3Fh99&W?=NxIvgTZoJI!`e>^x$&V$8Y0l2
> zc19e0Et3O3m`pMOqEkasL8VGE+u~2lZn>sRCRj169Z6mQ3*+`D+C#F1V7POV%<anZ
> z6pCKQ@RVSrcwcVrOLZ?$xtD*57PoeA63&N-%XnJ(lp#DsxA)DEe4#pIJYN4L?KKfP
> zZ}8xx1}Yb8^sa~PQ{dhJnXpW^iQQ1BG8H;hb)OypOm}Iq9~CEBz4Gap9nv3LG_$mV
> zuM<Bz1a#)PJc(dveSQp!nMsohFT14>lx(9cB{WN*9OP%Zbd1VDn(S4HX^ad4-b~#H
> z@9eUP4AAU`)yRf!k+rrrLSYfBSEi6RE#HtbqyPl<Sul{VKSX-iNqlnSZIysM_ebUb
> z+~Xr5U&)ibJOQ1TBtnlIOb`Bkw2_-U5}W;WbJF=|BPlxM45+#vgP+{|6lPI<iIY$2
> zG@MwL0dl;En#ny@be99^sS^qL;@t&ZhuFHzGD{dL39T{^4<C^+pb+1`aF>11S>RCH
> zqvJbt22t`FmU^tmTb+7LtpybCB-x1lGSlrpVQ9|6WNBs~q*M-to<L(Acj@$J6%B0l
> z9Z>1gD1l41oiy~}+O?!{68Jvim2*%BznW)@B=3<jH~jhjz|ZCMWv6gWeQlz-(KTzF
> z7VI7(No$qk2aLjuYY$0hK-g)7yzAX9CKq>IH<h+68}6;%x(9&vmLt}L<5`-ww7;yQ
> zm6u{#hw;;>)Xi1795q{#>sF*y^0T2@b$`Wqwch&z?BgN}IR9Ui&GZjmedlGizBd0T
> z;!cs&L)hJFGsJmFaiUsYrN$c0^BLU^n-B%fagn+jR{?Dq+K%VyMG<I@0%=3<4suF^
> z+%tHH6zc&0NeZ$t3@x+?%%xrBeXnAtt0~N?4^g>@pmAOShFY)k8zBxm@7Y<iJ#}$8
> z5HO92kagkd`}eTFMbYHXeVZDQ@eRuAkeEv-e%8D9)<yk(Ez|qR1*ydekW&XPuTZ>D
> zb^ZXU;<`+_B<hPLATaU}Ag4&`<8MrKV#`=!NVGD=jjWs!gw+dT#7~C>+IV{+A~1Ku
> zWggqWQd{E<Q#S2aj1fMk8XA86;5b|mA_;!hpUN0QJ*Y?jrtXmDo_GK&$59E$0cwGr
> z_$LwlZjpqrHefLrab;~b&y9-po!d<p<?(p{28(FQ{9snXm)a7~Ou+6=_!MzIPnklU
> z?nMI-Yw`o)9vH>%hF}W2ArPwJ33zWP>MIe;YDN8WV+|+a4_c>yFN#ZGN00G#%3HYi
> z4pePTnc{8k5CjwuN6hudRFcBkvB^&y3;pSFufzaaD`-;mPgJ~wr(<glZK${QAL#%9
> m0001a5yH9Ybh`Bb0l^G_7ytl1uze%3#Ao{g000001X)@i`Wb5g
>
> literal 0
> HcmV?d00001
>
> diff --git a/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh b/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 000000000000..d2a82a65f631
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/fsck-tests/036-bad-dev-extents/test.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> +#!/bin/bash
> +#
> +# Due to DUP chunk allocator bugs, we could allocate DUP chunks while its dev
> +# extents could exist beyond device boundary.
> +# And since all related items (block group, chunk, device used bytes) are all
> +# valid, btrfs check won't report any error.
> +#
> +# This test case contain hand crafted minimal image, to test if btrfs check can
> +# detect and report such error.
> +
> +source "$TEST_TOP/common"
> +
> +check_prereq btrfs
> +
> +check_image() {
> + run_check "$TOP/btrfs" check "$1"
I checked to your branch and ran test but failed.
Should it be run_must_fail instead?
> +}
> +
> +check_all_images
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread