From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CCB21A2B72; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:47:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711716437; cv=none; b=R7opnKyYflDU66w8BIVgFqZf76s+v9TKZV+/TYI9P6Iea9U7S/GPzpX9lrxY+NyftwLfoEaY9TkYK6WN3utuGAjDx+OZNXZJ++4KpKr2z/6pgLcL+7moyHflMMlnrzvutPkduYP1bBt9DmFxWvEiMfrsBHKnk2x4c8H4q8d3ssI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711716437; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KWF5woA40Y3P0zjBP6wmfQIo/JmwcFCBoVMPAt+k7cU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=oqeBXsFzDVPGOc0/JrO7azhN8ZyLP8U2+mPZhIDh8nJu2cIF/IAYMxGoUiQjvQFhQnX27fx9jGkUlhXlUN/dYpZH8smfC66Ej0ITZqDmtNiFJ6vXfnxJVYKgQ0cLHKSg6YDEYAbcXdXAdq1h32+71L57x27sydQ3ImgtfYoQvOc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Gp32yP2E; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Gp32yP2E" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72AA7C433B1; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:47:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711716437; bh=KWF5woA40Y3P0zjBP6wmfQIo/JmwcFCBoVMPAt+k7cU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Gp32yP2ECJOWsiDxxf69xsDyKhaSl/UgFeZ1VXOci2+CEsq93oNrWldrMfFuzV6hk LB9mIiVBYZCQN3LDh5IDNxXrkMm7JW5fmyeIwST8BI6lson47K1pJ2sJDssF6XC2L4 Xt3F3w1tXZi4Ho+yat6SuW1/biMD+DaDU9NHilPCDnAZVS/SqbieEBmvEJldF3CLWO TGK65VXWvKSY/j9OCs2WlgPlrFE5G6jmkXng5+MtumrvWzIMcVt4jc1wJYQM4KrNfj v0KSExnhwD5WklO9UKWGB1WdhjsREs44JEg8+eKmL4CesqD17hlIqOs+iV4+L5VbIs ivCg1yPRv5O9g== From: Sasha Levin To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: David Sterba , Josef Bacik , Anand Jain , Sasha Levin , clm@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.1 40/52] btrfs: handle chunk tree lookup error in btrfs_relocate_sys_chunks() Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:45:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20240329124605.3091273-40-sashal@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: <20240329124605.3091273-1-sashal@kernel.org> References: <20240329124605.3091273-1-sashal@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: Ignore X-stable-base: Linux 6.1.83 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: David Sterba [ Upstream commit 7411055db5ce64f836aaffd422396af0075fdc99 ] The unhandled case in btrfs_relocate_sys_chunks() loop is a corruption, as it could be caused only by two impossible conditions: - at first the search key is set up to look for a chunk tree item, with offset -1, this is an inexact search and the key->offset will contain the correct offset upon a successful search, a valid chunk tree item cannot have an offset -1 - after first successful search, the found_key corresponds to a chunk item, the offset is decremented by 1 before the next loop, it's impossible to find a chunk item there due to alignment and size constraints Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Signed-off-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 6fc2d99270c18..06db09c20df2d 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -3381,7 +3381,17 @@ static int btrfs_relocate_sys_chunks(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); goto error; } - BUG_ON(ret == 0); /* Corruption */ + if (ret == 0) { + /* + * On the first search we would find chunk tree with + * offset -1, which is not possible. On subsequent + * loops this would find an existing item on an invalid + * offset (one less than the previous one, wrong + * alignment and size). + */ + ret = -EUCLEAN; + goto error; + } ret = btrfs_previous_item(chunk_root, path, key.objectid, key.type); -- 2.43.0