Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add a sanity check for btrfs root

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

在 2024/10/26 04:33, David Sterba 写道:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 08:23:07PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2024/10/25 15:25, Lizhi Xu 写道:
>>> Syzbot report a null-ptr-deref in btrfs_search_slot.
>>> It use the input logical can't find the extent root in extent_from_logical,
>>> and triger the null-ptr-deref in btrfs_search_slot.
>>> Add sanity check for btrfs root before using it in btrfs_search_slot.
>>
>> Although I'd prefer to explain a little more about why the NULL root
>> pointer can happen (caused by the rescue=all mount option), which can
>> cause NULL root pointer for non-critical tree roots, like
>> uuid/csum/extent or even device trees.
>>
>> You don't need to bother sending an update.
>> I can add such info when pushing to the maintainer's tree.
>>
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+3030e17bd57a73d39bd7@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3030e17bd57a73d39bd7
>>> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
>
>>> @@ -2023,6 +2023,10 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root *root,
>>>    	int min_write_lock_level;
>>>    	int prev_cmp;
>>>
>>> +	if (!root)
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>
> The function returns errors indirectly so it's not clear which could be
> ultimately returned. I did a quick search over the calls starting in
> btrfs_search_slot() and it seems that EINVAL is not used so we'd know if
> it ends up in some error report. The ones I found: EAGAIN, EIO, EUCLEAN,
> ENOMEM.
>

If you want, I can add extra (ratelimited though) error/warning message
for such cases.

Considering this is only possible for rescue=all cases, extra error
messages should be fine.

Or do you prefer some more rare return values?

Thanks,
Qu