From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: detect invalid extents at the end of an extent-block
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:53:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51AE45CF.6070901@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130403190841.GA16276@fury.redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4457 bytes --]
On 4/3/13 2:08 PM, David Jeffery wrote:
> e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
> extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
> not being detected.
>
> From a part of a dump_extents output:
>
> 1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
> 1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
>
> e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
> extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
> the tree.
>
> This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
Here's an image which demonstrates this, current e2fsck does not detect
the error.
-Eric
> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
> ---
> e2fsck/pass1.c | 13 +++++++++----
> e2fsck/problem.c | 6 ++++++
> e2fsck/problem.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> index a20b57b..198e9a0 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> @@ -1848,7 +1848,7 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
>
> static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> struct process_block_struct *pb,
> - blk64_t start_block,
> + blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
> ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
> {
> struct ext2fs_extent extent;
> @@ -1891,6 +1891,9 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
> else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
> problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
> + else if (end_block &&
> + (extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len) > end_block)
> + problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
> else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
> else if (is_leaf &&
> @@ -1937,10 +1940,11 @@ fix_problem_now:
> }
>
> if (!is_leaf) {
> - blk64_t lblk;
> + blk64_t lblk, lblk_end;
>
> blk = extent.e_pblk;
> lblk = extent.e_lblk;
> + lblk_end = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
> if (pctx->errcode) {
> @@ -1965,7 +1969,8 @@ fix_problem_now:
> if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
> ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
> }
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
> + lblk_end, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode)
> return;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> @@ -2084,7 +2089,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
> }
>
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode &&
> fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
> pb->num_blocks = 0;
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> index 76bc1d5..b0a6e19 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> @@ -1008,6 +1008,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
> "Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
> PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>
> + /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
> + { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
> + N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
> + PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
> +
> +
> /* Pass 1b errors */
>
> /* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
> index d2b6df4..fcdc1a1 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.h
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ struct problem_context {
> /* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
> #define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
>
> +#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
> /*
> * Pass 1b errors
> */
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
[-- Attachment #2: testfs.img.bz2 --]
[-- Type: application/x-bzip2, Size: 14692 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-04 19:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-03 19:08 [PATCH] e2fsck: detect invalid extents at the end of an extent-block David Jeffery
2013-06-04 19:53 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2013-06-07 3:35 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-06-07 3:40 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-04 21:54 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-07 3:39 ` Theodore Ts'o
2013-07-16 14:24 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2013-07-16 15:17 ` Eric Sandeen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51AE45CF.6070901@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=djeffery@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).