From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E915BC43603 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBA22465E for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="XrUUySKK" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727241AbfLQPtM (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:49:12 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-f67.google.com ([209.85.219.67]:37713 "EHLO mail-qv1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726858AbfLQPtL (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:49:11 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-f67.google.com with SMTP id f16so2146562qvi.4 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:49:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toxicpanda-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4AwhM4X3IvoSSiTGZld3NdQlFYR22xN5kTIMQAv8EPc=; b=XrUUySKKKJBpvZ3XAhoK4VJuXuUUV7YXLwjghJ8AFRO6bzSunl/1EuBmLz1uc8FO7Z GIhRDKNrylU5Mkq4f9pmA6bSqaemSwgsrWKc5rHDujOJveC+0rOdm+/Au8Y+CPV4u1cO b80rH73fFXwacH0yKWcqSRyW5TjajnR0jNE32Z5OaonOoJ8FfRQ2b/VpfZcjimlvKSVY fsiBnHo2NfGdAUkmfir/CLkMM/WrBiV22e++x7HY27XFWUR1PxgDw/agAvXwBiiHR0BK rT3zr/lMp5ZZksO/8KkBnz4VmYHlQd/c1+hoPdPE6P9++z1HA94TJYvZ1AL2xo7I4y3t fePA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4AwhM4X3IvoSSiTGZld3NdQlFYR22xN5kTIMQAv8EPc=; b=tlGUdvG57jsa/kt4vbuX3jfK8Hv4N7UUyZRZAT01Z0mU4ll/Cn+bWtH860GEV4yMNN SzC3U6gYLdBRsvlvIg3yXfiwYakLtSNO8941pfWplj9mX8VV/5fodvhyNDBqUdPMXBIO 9Zxs74i7XH+g0Aa3N4Qf67gbyOnQO8WqQupCf1rsBbPnhd1P1BsnFQbLOVefMyIUiSyn 6wNA4H/4+Aj2ZfI6opPzb1RSKci+8efKbdij1A432TMbEjX12+Du2RMcdbxVwRNHmNY4 hzJwqihbbzSqnNzk4la/kW4Xr8Arw7FqinVVqaBM1pZpPJ4/RClKgr0kDIm6M7rb8WP4 W29A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWQgeC1FH/rq2YO23jyjg7lbFB3/6ZoCr6MYqEP/aLmgY5+Pd4i 3RjU2R8f2iKcOM5O8M2RL6egR1Z1BwyWhA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwp6tQtobLpkiHsak4B7Swx5tpFA+5lgmtVkH9xVf/XuSe3ecs0kVQQZ1aSXXi3ptMUxVkGCA== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ed32:: with SMTP id u18mr5372524qvq.2.1576597750413; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:49:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.106] ([107.15.81.208]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s91sm619429qtd.50.2019.12.17.07.49.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:49:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: Check leaf chunk item size To: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20191217105820.20884-1-wqu@suse.com> From: Josef Bacik Message-ID: <96888112-822b-83a9-ebde-2f5f76d9b2f2@toxicpanda.com> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:49:08 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191217105820.20884-1-wqu@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 12/17/19 5:58 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Inspired by btrfs-progs github issue #208, where chunk item in chunk > tree has invalid num_stripes (0). > > Although that can already be catched by current btrfs_check_chunk_valid(), > that function doesn't really check item size as it needs to handle chunk > item in super block sys_chunk_array(). > > This patch will just add two extra checks for chunk items in chunk tree: > - Basic chunk item size > If the item is smaller than btrfs_chunk (which already contains one > stripe), exit right now as reading num_stripes may even go beyond > eb boundary. > > - Item size check against num_stripes > If item size doesn't match with calculated chunk size, then either the > item size or the num_stripes is corrupted. Error out anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik Thanks, Josef