From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>, xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't set bt_nr_sectors to a negative number
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:20:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251014182058.GX6188@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec2bc94bc73a42ab61019b8de5951359d383247d.camel@gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 12:17:30PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-10-13 at 09:33 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> >
> > xfs_daddr_t is a signed type, which means that xfs_buf_map_verify is
> > using a signed comparison. This causes problems if bt_nr_sectors is
> > never overridden (e.g. in the case of an xfbtree for rmap btree repairs)
> > because even daddr 0 can't pass the verifier test in that case.
> Okay so the check "if (map->bm_bn < 0 || map->bm_bn >= btp->bt_nr_sectors) {" will be true of the
> default value of btp->bt_nr_sectors = -1 and the verifier will fail(incorrectly), right?
> Why would we not want to override bt_nr_sectors? If there is device, then shouldn't it always have a
> buffer target with a certain number of bt_nr_sectors?
Online repair creates tmpfs files in which to stage repairs, and uses
the xfbtree buftarg so that it can build a replacement rmapbt in a tmpfs
file. I guess xfbtree should be setting bt_nr_sectors to (max pagecache
size / 512) but in practicality nobody should ever have a 16TB rmap
btree on 32-bit or an 8EB rmap btree on 64-bit.
--D
> --NR
> >
> > Define an explicit max constant and set the initial bt_nr_sectors to a
> > positive value.
> >
> > Found by xfs/422.
> >
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v6.18-rc1
> > Fixes: 42852fe57c6d2a ("xfs: track the number of blocks in each buftarg")
> > Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 1 +
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h
> > index 8fa7bdf59c9110..e25cd2a160f31c 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h
> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern struct kmem_cache *xfs_buf_cache;
> > */
> > struct xfs_buf;
> >
> > +#define XFS_BUF_DADDR_MAX ((xfs_daddr_t) S64_MAX)
> > #define XFS_BUF_DADDR_NULL ((xfs_daddr_t) (-1LL))
> >
> > #define XBF_READ (1u << 0) /* buffer intended for reading from device */
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > index 773d959965dc29..47edf3041631bb 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > @@ -1751,7 +1751,7 @@ xfs_init_buftarg(
> > const char *descr)
> > {
> > /* The maximum size of the buftarg is only known once the sb is read. */
> > - btp->bt_nr_sectors = (xfs_daddr_t)-1;
> > + btp->bt_nr_sectors = XFS_BUF_DADDR_MAX;
> >
> > /* Set up device logical sector size mask */
> > btp->bt_logical_sectorsize = logical_sectorsize;
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-14 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-13 16:33 [PATCH] xfs: don't set bt_nr_sectors to a negative number Darrick J. Wong
2025-10-14 4:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-14 6:47 ` Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
2025-10-14 18:20 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2025-10-15 6:08 ` Nirjhar Roy (IBM)
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=20251014182058.GX6188@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com \
/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