* [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item
@ 2018-07-02 5:53 Qu Wenruo
2018-07-02 6:21 ` kbuild test robot
2018-07-02 7:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-07-02 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
As reported in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199849,
a crafted image with invalid block group items could make free space cache
code to cause panic.
We could early detect such invalid block group item by checking:
1) Size (key)
We have a up limit on block group item (10G)
2) Chunk objectid
3) Type
Exactly 1 bit set for type and no more than 1 bit set for profile
4) Used space
No more than block group size.
This should allow btrfs to detect and refuse to mount the crafted image.
Reported-by: Xu Wen <wen.xu@gatech.edu>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
index 8d40e7dd8c30..a42187ba50d7 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
@@ -353,6 +353,91 @@ static int check_dir_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
return 0;
}
+__printf(4, 5)
+__cold
+static void block_group_err(const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ const struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot,
+ const char *fmt, ...)
+{
+ struct btrfs_key key;
+ struct va_format vaf;
+ va_list args;
+
+ btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(eb, &key, slot);
+ va_start(args, fmt);
+
+ vaf.fmt = fmt;
+ vaf.va = &args;
+
+ btrfs_crit(fs_info,
+ "corrupt %s: root=%llu block=%llu slot=%d bg_start=%llu bg_len=%llu, %pV",
+ btrfs_header_level(eb) == 0 ? "leaf" : "node",
+ btrfs_header_owner(eb), btrfs_header_bytenr(eb), slot,
+ key.objectid, key.offset, &vaf);
+ va_end(args);
+}
+
+static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ struct extent_buffer *leaf,
+ struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
+{
+ struct btrfs_block_group_item bgi;
+ u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size_nr(leaf, slot);
+ u64 flags;
+
+ /*
+ * Here we don't really care about unalignment since extent allocator
+ * can handle it.
+ * We care more about the size, as if one block group is larger than
+ * maximum size, it's must be some obvious corruption
+ */
+ if (key->offset > 10ULL * SZ_1G) {
+ block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
+ "invalid block group size, have %llu expect (0, %llu)",
+ key->offset, 10ULL * SZ_1G);
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+ if (item_size != sizeof(bgi)) {
+ block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
+ "invalid item size, have %u expect %lu",
+ item_size, sizeof(bgi));
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+ read_extent_buffer(leaf, &bgi, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
+ sizeof(bgi));
+ if (btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi) !=
+ BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID) {
+ block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
+ "invalid block group chunk objectid, have %llu expect %llu",
+ btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi),
+ BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID);
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+ if (btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi) > key->offset) {
+ block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
+ "invalid block group used, have %llu expect [0, %llu)",
+ btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi), key->offset);
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+ flags = btrfs_block_group_flags(&bgi);
+ if (!((flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 ||
+ hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 1)) {
+ block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
+"invalid profile flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect no more than 1 bit set",
+ flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK,
+ hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK));
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+ if (hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK) != 1) {
+ block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
+"invalid type flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect exactly 1 bit set",
+ flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK,
+ hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK));
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
/*
* Common point to switch the item-specific validation.
*/
@@ -374,6 +459,9 @@ static int check_leaf_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
case BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY:
ret = check_dir_item(fs_info, leaf, key, slot);
break;
+ case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_ITEM_KEY:
+ ret = check_block_group_item(fs_info, leaf, key, slot);
+ break;
}
return ret;
}
--
2.18.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item
2018-07-02 5:53 [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item Qu Wenruo
@ 2018-07-02 6:21 ` kbuild test robot
2018-07-02 7:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: kbuild test robot @ 2018-07-02 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qu Wenruo; +Cc: kbuild-all, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3802 bytes --]
Hi Qu,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on btrfs/next]
[also build test WARNING on v4.18-rc3 next-20180629]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Qu-Wenruo/btrfs-tree-checker-Verify-block_group_item/20180702-135502
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next
config: i386-randconfig-x016-201826 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-16) 7.3.0
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=i386
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function 'check_block_group_item':
>> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:402:41: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'unsigned int' [-Wformat=]
"invalid item size, have %u expect %lu",
~~^
%u
vim +402 fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
379
380 static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
381 struct extent_buffer *leaf,
382 struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
383 {
384 struct btrfs_block_group_item bgi;
385 u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size_nr(leaf, slot);
386 u64 flags;
387
388 /*
389 * Here we don't really care about unalignment since extent allocator
390 * can handle it.
391 * We care more about the size, as if one block group is larger than
392 * maximum size, it's must be some obvious corruption
393 */
394 if (key->offset > 10ULL * SZ_1G) {
395 block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
396 "invalid block group size, have %llu expect (0, %llu)",
397 key->offset, 10ULL * SZ_1G);
398 return -EUCLEAN;
399 }
400 if (item_size != sizeof(bgi)) {
401 block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> 402 "invalid item size, have %u expect %lu",
403 item_size, sizeof(bgi));
404 return -EUCLEAN;
405 }
406 read_extent_buffer(leaf, &bgi, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
407 sizeof(bgi));
408 if (btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi) !=
409 BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID) {
410 block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
411 "invalid block group chunk objectid, have %llu expect %llu",
412 btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi),
413 BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID);
414 return -EUCLEAN;
415 }
416 if (btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi) > key->offset) {
417 block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
418 "invalid block group used, have %llu expect [0, %llu)",
419 btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi), key->offset);
420 return -EUCLEAN;
421 }
422 flags = btrfs_block_group_flags(&bgi);
423 if (!((flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 ||
424 hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 1)) {
425 block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
426 "invalid profile flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect no more than 1 bit set",
427 flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK,
428 hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK));
429 return -EUCLEAN;
430 }
431 if (hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK) != 1) {
432 block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
433 "invalid type flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect exactly 1 bit set",
434 flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK,
435 hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK));
436 return -EUCLEAN;
437 }
438 return 0;
439 }
440
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
[-- Attachment #2: .config.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 30224 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item
2018-07-02 5:53 [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item Qu Wenruo
2018-07-02 6:21 ` kbuild test robot
@ 2018-07-02 7:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-02 7:34 ` Qu Wenruo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nikolay Borisov @ 2018-07-02 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qu Wenruo, linux-btrfs
On 2.07.2018 08:53, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> As reported in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199849,
> a crafted image with invalid block group items could make free space cache
> code to cause panic.
>
> We could early detect such invalid block group item by checking:
> 1) Size (key)
> We have a up limit on block group item (10G)
> 2) Chunk objectid
> 3) Type
> Exactly 1 bit set for type and no more than 1 bit set for profile
> 4) Used space
> No more than block group size.
>
> This should allow btrfs to detect and refuse to mount the crafted image.
>
> Reported-by: Xu Wen <wen.xu@gatech.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> index 8d40e7dd8c30..a42187ba50d7 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> @@ -353,6 +353,91 @@ static int check_dir_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +__printf(4, 5)
> +__cold
> +static void block_group_err(const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + const struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot,
> + const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_key key;
> + struct va_format vaf;
> + va_list args;
> +
> + btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(eb, &key, slot);
> + va_start(args, fmt);
> +
> + vaf.fmt = fmt;
> + vaf.va = &args;
> +
> + btrfs_crit(fs_info,
> + "corrupt %s: root=%llu block=%llu slot=%d bg_start=%llu bg_len=%llu, %pV",
> + btrfs_header_level(eb) == 0 ? "leaf" : "node",
> + btrfs_header_owner(eb), btrfs_header_bytenr(eb), slot,
> + key.objectid, key.offset, &vaf);
> + va_end(args);
> +}
> +
> +static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + struct extent_buffer *leaf,
Seems it's not mandatory that this extent buffer points to a leaf, it
might very well point to an interim node (judging from the
btrfs_header_level() check in block_group_err). I'd suggest you use the
more neutral - eb .
> + struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_block_group_item bgi;
> + u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size_nr(leaf, slot);
> + u64 flags;
> +
> + /*
> + * Here we don't really care about unalignment since extent allocator
> + * can handle it.
> + * We care more about the size, as if one block group is larger than
> + * maximum size, it's must be some obvious corruption
> + */
> + if (key->offset > 10ULL * SZ_1G) {
> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> + "invalid block group size, have %llu expect (0, %llu)",
> + key->offset, 10ULL * SZ_1G);
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
Put an empty line after each if to distinguish each part more easily.
> + if (item_size != sizeof(bgi)) {
> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> + "invalid item size, have %u expect %lu",
> + item_size, sizeof(bgi));
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> + read_extent_buffer(leaf, &bgi, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
> + sizeof(bgi));
> + if (btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi) !=
> + BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID) {
> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> + "invalid block group chunk objectid, have %llu expect %llu",
> + btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi),
> + BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID);
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> + if (btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi) > key->offset) {
> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> + "invalid block group used, have %llu expect [0, %llu)",
> + btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi), key->offset);
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> + flags = btrfs_block_group_flags(&bgi);
> + if (!((flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 ||
> + hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 1)) {
Can you make this condition a bit more stupid like:
if ((flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 ||
hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) > 1)
It's easy to miss the ! right before the two (( and it causes a mild
head scratch :)
> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> +"invalid profile flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect no more than 1 bit set",
> + flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK,
> + hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK));
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> + if (hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK) != 1) {
> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
> +"invalid type flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect exactly 1 bit set",
> + flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK,
> + hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK));
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Common point to switch the item-specific validation.
> */
> @@ -374,6 +459,9 @@ static int check_leaf_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> case BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY:
> ret = check_dir_item(fs_info, leaf, key, slot);
> break;
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_ITEM_KEY:
> + ret = check_block_group_item(fs_info, leaf, key, slot);
> + break;
> }
> return ret;
> }
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item
2018-07-02 7:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
@ 2018-07-02 7:34 ` Qu Wenruo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2018-07-02 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nikolay Borisov, linux-btrfs
On 2018年07月02日 15:28, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 2.07.2018 08:53, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> As reported in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199849,
>> a crafted image with invalid block group items could make free space cache
>> code to cause panic.
>>
>> We could early detect such invalid block group item by checking:
>> 1) Size (key)
>> We have a up limit on block group item (10G)
>> 2) Chunk objectid
>> 3) Type
>> Exactly 1 bit set for type and no more than 1 bit set for profile
>> 4) Used space
>> No more than block group size.
>>
>> This should allow btrfs to detect and refuse to mount the crafted image.
>>
>> Reported-by: Xu Wen <wen.xu@gatech.edu>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> index 8d40e7dd8c30..a42187ba50d7 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> @@ -353,6 +353,91 @@ static int check_dir_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +__printf(4, 5)
>> +__cold
>> +static void block_group_err(const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> + const struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot,
>> + const char *fmt, ...)
>> +{
>> + struct btrfs_key key;
>> + struct va_format vaf;
>> + va_list args;
>> +
>> + btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(eb, &key, slot);
>> + va_start(args, fmt);
>> +
>> + vaf.fmt = fmt;
>> + vaf.va = &args;
>> +
>> + btrfs_crit(fs_info,
>> + "corrupt %s: root=%llu block=%llu slot=%d bg_start=%llu bg_len=%llu, %pV",
>> + btrfs_header_level(eb) == 0 ? "leaf" : "node",
>> + btrfs_header_owner(eb), btrfs_header_bytenr(eb), slot,
>> + key.objectid, key.offset, &vaf);
>> + va_end(args);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int check_block_group_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> + struct extent_buffer *leaf,
> Seems it's not mandatory that this extent buffer points to a leaf, it
> might very well point to an interim node (judging from the
> btrfs_header_level() check in block_group_err). I'd suggest you use the
> more neutral - eb .
Nope, it's ensured to be a leaf.
The caller is only from check_leaf(), whose name explains itself.
>> + struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
>> +{
>> + struct btrfs_block_group_item bgi;
>> + u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size_nr(leaf, slot);
>> + u64 flags;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Here we don't really care about unalignment since extent allocator
>> + * can handle it.
>> + * We care more about the size, as if one block group is larger than
>> + * maximum size, it's must be some obvious corruption
>> + */
>> + if (key->offset > 10ULL * SZ_1G) {
>> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>> + "invalid block group size, have %llu expect (0, %llu)",
>> + key->offset, 10ULL * SZ_1G);
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>
> Put an empty line after each if to distinguish each part more easily.
>
>> + if (item_size != sizeof(bgi)) {
>> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>> + "invalid item size, have %u expect %lu",
>> + item_size, sizeof(bgi));
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>> + read_extent_buffer(leaf, &bgi, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot),
>> + sizeof(bgi));
>> + if (btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi) !=
>> + BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID) {
>> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>> + "invalid block group chunk objectid, have %llu expect %llu",
>> + btrfs_block_group_chunk_objectid(&bgi),
>> + BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID);
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>> + if (btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi) > key->offset) {
>> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>> + "invalid block group used, have %llu expect [0, %llu)",
>> + btrfs_block_group_used(&bgi), key->offset);
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>> + flags = btrfs_block_group_flags(&bgi);
>> + if (!((flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 ||
>> + hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 1)) {
>
> Can you make this condition a bit more stupid like:
>
> if ((flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 ||
!=
> hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) > 1)
In fact, "hweight64() > 1" is good enough.
As all zero and only 1 set bit both fits above check.
I'll use hweight64() only.
>
> It's easy to miss the ! right before the two (( and it causes a mild
> head scratch :)
Yeah, hweight64() > 1 solves all.
Thanks,
Qu
>
>> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>> +"invalid profile flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect no more than 1 bit set",
>> + flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK,
>> + hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK));
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>> + if (hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK) != 1) {
>> + block_group_err(fs_info, leaf, slot,
>> +"invalid type flags, have 0x%llx (%lu bits set) expect exactly 1 bit set",
>> + flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK,
>> + hweight64(flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK));
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Common point to switch the item-specific validation.
>> */
>> @@ -374,6 +459,9 @@ static int check_leaf_item(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> case BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY:
>> ret = check_dir_item(fs_info, leaf, key, slot);
>> break;
>> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_ITEM_KEY:
>> + ret = check_block_group_item(fs_info, leaf, key, slot);
>> + break;
>> }
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-07-02 7:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-07-02 5:53 [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Verify block_group_item Qu Wenruo
2018-07-02 6:21 ` kbuild test robot
2018-07-02 7:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-07-02 7:34 ` Qu Wenruo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).