Commit Graph

71 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Qu Wenruo 147a097cf0 btrfs: tree-checker: Verify location key for DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX
[PROBLEM]
There is a user report in the mail list, showing the following corrupted
tree blocks:

       item 62 key (486836 DIR_ITEM 2543451757) itemoff 6273 itemsize 74
               location key (4065004 INODE_ITEM 1073741824) type FILE
               transid 21397 data_len 0 name_len 44
               name: FILENAME

Note that location key, its offset should be 0 for all INODE_ITEMS.
This caused failed lookup of the inode.

[CAUSE]
That offending value, 1073741824, is 0x40000000. So this looks like a
memory bit flip.

[FIX]
This patch will enhance tree-checker to check location key of
DIR_INDEX/DIR_ITEM/XATTR_ITEM.

There are several different combinations needs to check:

- item_key.type == DIR_INDEX/DIR_ITEM

  * location_key.type == BTRFS_INODE_ITEM_KEY
    This location_key should follow the check in inode_item check.
  * location_key.type == BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY
    Despite the existing check, DIR_INDEX/DIR_ITEM can only points to
    subvolume trees.
  * All other keys are not allowed.

- item_key.type == XATTR_ITEM
  location_key should be all 0.

Reported-by: Mike Gilbert <floppymaster@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-01-20 16:40:56 +01:00
Qu Wenruo 57a0e67491 btrfs: tree-checker: Refactor root key check into separate function
ROOT_ITEM key check itself is not as simple as single line check, and
will be reused for both ROOT_ITEM and DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX location key
check, so refactor such check into check_root_key().

Also since we are here, fix a comment error about ROOT_ITEM offset,
which is transid of snapshot creation, not some "older kernel behavior".

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-01-20 16:40:56 +01:00
Qu Wenruo c23c77b097 btrfs: tree-checker: Refactor inode key check into seperate function
Inode key check is not as easy as several lines, and it will be called
in more than one location (INODE_ITEM check and
DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX/XATTR_ITEM location key check).

So here refactor such check into check_inode_key().  And add extra
checks for XATTR_ITEM.

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-01-20 16:40:56 +01:00
Qu Wenruo c3053ebb0b btrfs: tree-checker: Clean up fs_info parameter from error message wrapper
The @fs_info parameter can be extracted from extent_buffer structure,
and there are already some wrappers getting rid of the @fs_info
parameter.

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-01-20 16:40:56 +01:00
Qu Wenruo f6d2a5c263 btrfs: tree-checker: Check leaf chunk item size
Inspired by btrfs-progs github issue #208, where chunk item in chunk
tree has invalid num_stripes (0).

Although that can already be caught 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 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.

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2020-01-20 16:40:56 +01:00
Filipe Manana ad1d8c4399 Btrfs: make tree checker detect checksum items with overlapping ranges
Having checksum items, either on the checksums tree or in a log tree, that
represent ranges that overlap each other is a sign of a corruption. Such
case confuses the checksum lookup code and can result in not being able to
find checksums or find stale checksums.

So add a check for such case.

This is motivated by a recent fix for a case where a log tree had checksum
items covering ranges that overlap each other due to extent cloning, and
resulted in missing checksums after replaying the log tree. It also helps
detect past issues such as stale and outdated checksums due to overlapping,
commit 27b9a8122f ("Btrfs: fix csum tree corruption, duplicate and
outdated checksums").

CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-12-13 14:09:25 +01:00
Andreas Färber 994bf9cd78 btrfs: tree-checker: Fix error format string for size_t
Argument BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_INLINE_DATA_START is defined as offsetof(),
which returns type size_t, so we need %zu instead of %lu.

This fixes a build warning on 32-bit ARM:

  ../fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function 'check_extent_data_item':
  ../fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:230:43: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type 'long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'unsigned int' [-Wformat=]
    230 |     "invalid item size, have %u expect [%lu, %u)",
        |                                         ~~^
        |                                           long unsigned int
        |                                         %u

Fixes: 153a6d2999 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Check item size before reading file extent type")
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-12-13 14:09:23 +01:00
Qu Wenruo 153a6d2999 btrfs: tree-checker: Check item size before reading file extent type
In check_extent_data_item(), we read file extent type without verifying
if the item size is valid.

Add such check to ensure the file extent type we read is correct.

The check is not as accurate as we need to cover both inline and regular
extents, so it only checks if the item size is larger or equal to inline
header.
So the existing size checks on inline/regular extents are still needed.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 17:51:48 +01:00
David Sterba de0dc456fd btrfs: rename block_group_item on-stack accessors to follow naming
All accessors defined by BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS contain _stack_ in the
name, the block group ones were not following that scheme, so let's
switch them.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 17:51:45 +01:00
Chengguang Xu ce96b7ffd1 btrfs: use better definition of number of compression type
The compression type upper limit constant is the same as the last value
and this is confusing.  In order to keep coding style consistent, use
BTRFS_NR_COMPRESS_TYPES as the total number that follows the idom of
'NR' being one more than the last value.

Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 12:46:55 +01:00
Chengguang Xu b9b1a53e18 btrfs: use enum for extent type defines
Use enum to replace macro definitions of extent types.

Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 12:46:55 +01:00
Qu Wenruo 80d7fd1e09 btrfs: tree-checker: Refactor prev_key check for ino into a function
Refactor the check for prev_key->objectid of the following key types
into one function, check_prev_ino():

- EXTENT_DATA
- INODE_REF
- DIR_INDEX
- DIR_ITEM
- XATTR_ITEM

Also add the check of prev_key for INODE_REF.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 12:46:53 +01:00
David Sterba c1499166d1 btrfs: use has_single_bit_set for clarity
Replace is_power_of_2 with the helper that is self-documenting and
remove the open coded call in alloc_profile_is_valid.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 12:46:50 +01:00
Qu Wenruo 71bf92a9b8 btrfs: tree-checker: Add check for INODE_REF
For INODE_REF we will check:
- Objectid (ino) against previous key
  To detect missing INODE_ITEM.

- No overflow/padding in the data payload
  Much like DIR_ITEM, but with less members to check.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 12:46:46 +01:00
Qu Wenruo c18679ebd8 btrfs: tree-checker: Try to detect missing INODE_ITEM
For the following items, key->objectid is inode number:
- DIR_ITEM
- DIR_INDEX
- XATTR_ITEM
- EXTENT_DATA
- INODE_REF

So in the subvolume tree, such items must have its previous item share the
same objectid, e.g.:

 (257 INODE_ITEM 0)
 (257 DIR_INDEX xxx)
 (257 DIR_ITEM xxx)
 (258 INODE_ITEM 0)
 (258 INODE_REF 0)
 (258 XATTR_ITEM 0)
 (258 EXTENT_DATA 0)

But if we have the following sequence, then there is definitely
something wrong, normally some INODE_ITEM is missing, like:

 (257 INODE_ITEM 0)
 (257 DIR_INDEX xxx)
 (257 DIR_ITEM xxx)
 (258 XATTR_ITEM 0)  <<< objecitd suddenly changed to 258
 (258 EXTENT_DATA 0)

So just by checking the previous key for above inode based key types, we
can detect a missing inode item.

For INODE_REF key type, the check will be added along with INODE_REF
checker.

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 12:46:46 +01:00
Qu Wenruo 8bb177d18f btrfs: tree-checker: Fix wrong check on max devid
[BUG]
The following script will cause false alert on devid check.
  #!/bin/bash

  dev1=/dev/test/test
  dev2=/dev/test/scratch1
  mnt=/mnt/btrfs

  umount $dev1 &> /dev/null
  umount $dev2 &> /dev/null
  umount $mnt &> /dev/null

  mkfs.btrfs -f $dev1

  mount $dev1 $mnt

  _fail()
  {
          echo "!!! FAILED !!!"
          exit 1
  }

  for ((i = 0; i < 4096; i++)); do
          btrfs dev add -f $dev2 $mnt || _fail
          btrfs dev del $dev1 $mnt || _fail
          dev_tmp=$dev1
          dev1=$dev2
          dev2=$dev_tmp
  done

[CAUSE]
Tree-checker uses BTRFS_MAX_DEVS() and BTRFS_MAX_DEVS_SYS_CHUNK() as
upper limit for devid.  But we can have devid holes just like above
script.

So the check for devid is incorrect and could cause false alert.

[FIX]
Just remove the whole devid check.  We don't have any hard requirement
for devid assignment.

Furthermore, even devid could get corrupted by a bitflip, we still have
dev extents verification at mount time, so corrupted data won't sneak
in.

This fixes fstests btrfs/194.

Reported-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Fixes: ab4ba2e133 ("btrfs: tree-checker: Verify dev item")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.2+
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-10-25 19:11:34 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 62fdaa52a3 btrfs: Detect unbalanced tree with empty leaf before crashing btree operations
[BUG]
With crafted image, btrfs will panic at btree operations:

  kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:3894!
  invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
  CPU: 0 PID: 1138 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 5.0.0-rc8+ #9
  RIP: 0010:__push_leaf_left+0x6b6/0x6e0
  RSP: 0018:ffffc0bd4128b990 EFLAGS: 00010246
  RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffa0a4ab8f0e38 RCX: 0000000000000000
  RDX: ffffa0a280000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffffa0a4b3814000
  RBP: ffffc0bd4128ba38 R08: 0000000000001000 R09: ffffc0bd4128b948
  R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000240
  R13: ffffa0a4b556fb60 R14: ffffa0a4ab8f0af0 R15: ffffa0a4ab8f0af0
  FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffa0a4b7a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
  CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
  CR2: 00007f2461c80020 CR3: 000000022b32a006 CR4: 00000000000206f0
  Call Trace:
  ? _cond_resched+0x1a/0x50
  push_leaf_left+0x179/0x190
  btrfs_del_items+0x316/0x470
  btrfs_del_csums+0x215/0x3a0
  __btrfs_free_extent.isra.72+0x5a7/0xbe0
  __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x539/0x1120
  btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xdb/0x1b0
  btrfs_commit_transaction+0x52/0x950
  ? start_transaction+0x94/0x450
  transaction_kthread+0x163/0x190
  kthread+0x105/0x140
  ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction+0x560/0x560
  ? kthread_destroy_worker+0x50/0x50
  ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
  Modules linked in:
  ---[ end trace c2425e6e89b5558f ]---

[CAUSE]
The offending csum tree looks like this:

  checksum tree key (CSUM_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0)
  node 29741056 level 1 items 14 free 107 generation 19 owner CSUM_TREE
	  ...
	  key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 85975040) block 29630464 gen 17
	  key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 89911296) block 29642752 gen 17 <<<
	  key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 92274688) block 29646848 gen 17
	  ...

  leaf 29630464 items 6 free space 1 generation 17 owner CSUM_TREE
	  item 0 key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 85975040) itemoff 3987 itemsize 8
		  range start 85975040 end 85983232 length 8192
	  ...
  leaf 29642752 items 0 free space 3995 generation 17 owner 0
		      ^ empty leaf            invalid owner ^

  leaf 29646848 items 1 free space 602 generation 17 owner CSUM_TREE
	  item 0 key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 92274688) itemoff 627 itemsize 3368
		  range start 92274688 end 95723520 length 3448832

So we have a corrupted csum tree where one tree leaf is completely
empty, causing unbalanced btree, thus leading to unexpected btree
balance error.

[FIX]
For this particular case, we handle it in two directions to catch it:
- Check if the tree block is empty through btrfs_verify_level_key()
  So that invalid tree blocks won't be read out through
  btrfs_search_slot() and its variants.

- Check 0 tree owner in tree checker
  NO tree is using 0 as its tree owner, detect it and reject at tree
  block read time.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202821
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-09-09 14:59:14 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 0785a9aacf btrfs: tree-checker: Add EXTENT_DATA_REF check
EXTENT_DATA_REF is a little like DIR_ITEM which contains hash in its
key->offset.

This patch will check the following contents:
- Key->objectid
  Basic alignment check.

- Hash
  Hash of each extent_data_ref item must match key->offset.

- Offset
  Basic alignment check.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-09-09 14:59:12 +02:00
Qu Wenruo e2406a6f13 btrfs: tree-checker: Add simple keyed refs check
For TREE_BLOCK_REF, SHARED_DATA_REF and SHARED_BLOCK_REF we need to
check:
              | TREE_BLOCK_REF | SHARED_BLOCK_REF | SHARED_BLOCK_REF
--------------+----------------+-----------------+------------------
key->objectid |    Alignment   |     Alignment    |    Alignment
key->offset   |    Any value   |     Alignment    |    Alignment
item_size     |        0       |        0         |   sizeof(le32) (*)

*: sizeof(struct btrfs_shared_data_ref)

So introduce a check to check all these 3 key types together.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-09-09 14:59:12 +02:00
Qu Wenruo f82d1c7ca8 btrfs: tree-checker: Add EXTENT_ITEM and METADATA_ITEM check
This patch introduces the ability to check extent items.

This check involves:
- key->objectid check
  Basic alignment check.

- key->type check
  Against btrfs_extent_item::type and SKINNY_METADATA feature.

- key->offset alignment check for EXTENT_ITEM

- key->offset check for METADATA_ITEM

- item size check
  Both against minimal size and stepping check.

- btrfs_extent_item check
  Checks its flags and generation.

- btrfs_extent_inline_ref checks
  Against 4 types inline ref.
  Checks bytenr alignment and tree level.

- btrfs_extent_item::refs check
  Check against total refs found in inline refs.

This check would be the most complex single item check due to its nature
of inlined items.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-09-09 14:59:12 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 259ee7754b btrfs: tree-checker: Add ROOT_ITEM check
This patch will introduce ROOT_ITEM check, which includes:
- Key->objectid and key->offset check
  Currently only some easy check, e.g. 0 as rootid is invalid.

- Item size check
  Root item size is fixed.

- Generation checks
  Generation, generation_v2 and last_snapshot should not be greater than
  super generation + 1

- Level and alignment check
  Level should be in [0, 7], and bytenr must be aligned to sector size.

- Flags check

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203261
Reported-by: Jungyeon Yoon <jungyeon.yoon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-09-09 14:59:01 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 4c094c33c9 btrfs: tree-checker: Check if the file extent end overflows
Under certain conditions, we could have strange file extent item in log
tree like:

  item 18 key (69599 108 397312) itemoff 15208 itemsize 53
	extent data disk bytenr 0 nr 0
	extent data offset 0 nr 18446744073709547520 ram 18446744073709547520

The num_bytes + ram_bytes overflow 64 bit type.

For num_bytes part, we can detect such overflow along with file offset
(key->offset), as file_offset + num_bytes should never go beyond u64.

For ram_bytes part, it's about the decompressed size of the extent, not
directly related to the size.
In theory it is OK to have a large value, and put extra limitation
on RAM bytes may cause unexpected false alerts.

So in tree-checker, we only check if the file offset and num bytes
overflow.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-07-01 13:34:55 +02:00
Filipe Manana 4e9845eff5 Btrfs: tree-checker: detect file extent items with overlapping ranges
Having file extent items with ranges that overlap each other is a
serious issue that leads to all sorts of corruptions and crashes (like a
BUG_ON() during the course of __btrfs_drop_extents() when it traims file
extent items). Therefore teach the tree checker to detect such cases.
This is motivated by a recently fixed bug (race between ranged full
fsync and writeback or adjacent ranges).

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-05-16 14:33:51 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 02529d7a10 btrfs: tree-checker: Allow error injection for tree-checker
Allowing error injection for btrfs_check_leaf_full() and
btrfs_check_node() is useful to test the failure path of btrfs write
time tree check.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:52 +02:00
David Sterba 033774dc5a btrfs: remove unused parameter fs_info from CHECK_FE_ALIGNED
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:51 +02:00
Qu Wenruo ff2ac107fa btrfs: tree-checker: Remove comprehensive root owner check
Commit 1ba98d086f ("Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has
zero item") introduced comprehensive root owner checker.

However it's pretty expensive tree search to locate the owner root,
especially when it get reused by mandatory read and write time
tree-checker.

This patch will remove that check, and completely rely on owner based
empty leaf check, which is much faster and still works fine for most
case.

And since we skip the old root owner check, now write time tree check
can be merged with btrfs_check_leaf_full().

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:39 +02:00
David Sterba ddaf1d5aef btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_chunk_valid
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:39 +02:00
David Sterba 813fd1dcab btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_node
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:38 +02:00
David Sterba cfdaad5e5f btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_leaf_relaxed
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:38 +02:00
David Sterba 1c4360ee05 btrfs: get fs_info from eb in btrfs_check_leaf_full
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:38 +02:00
David Sterba 39e57f495b btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_inode_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:35 +02:00
David Sterba 412a23127c btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_dev_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:35 +02:00
David Sterba 5617ed80cb btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in dev_item_err
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:34 +02:00
David Sterba d001e4a3fe btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in chunk_err
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:34 +02:00
David Sterba e2ccd361ef btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_leaf
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:34 +02:00
David Sterba 0076bc89a7 btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_leaf_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:34 +02:00
David Sterba ae2a19d8ad btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_extent_data_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:34 +02:00
David Sterba af60ce2b93 btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_block_group_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:34 +02:00
David Sterba 4806bd886a btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in block_group_err
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:33 +02:00
David Sterba ce4252c049 btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_dir_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:33 +02:00
David Sterba d98ced688f btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in dir_item_err
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:33 +02:00
David Sterba 68128ce756 btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in check_csum_item
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:33 +02:00
David Sterba 1fd715ffdd btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in file_extent_err
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:33 +02:00
David Sterba 86a6be3abe btrfs: tree-checker: get fs_info from eb in generic_err
We can read fs_info from extent buffer and can drop it from the
parameters.

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:33 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 496245cac5 btrfs: tree-checker: Verify inode item
There is a report in kernel bugzilla about mismatch file type in dir
item and inode item.

This inspires us to check inode mode in inode item.

This patch will check the following members:

- inode key objectid
  Should be ROOT_DIR_DIR or [256, (u64)-256] or FREE_INO.

- inode key offset
  Should be 0

- inode item generation
- inode item transid
  No newer than sb generation + 1.
  The +1 is for log tree.

- inode item mode
  No unknown bits.
  No invalid S_IF* bit.
  NOTE: S_IFMT check is not enough, need to check every know type.

- inode item nlink
  Dir should have no more link than 1.

- inode item flags

Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:32 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 80e46cf22b btrfs: tree-checker: Enhance chunk checker to validate chunk profile
Btrfs-progs already have a comprehensive type checker, to ensure there
is only 0 (SINGLE profile) or 1 (DUP/RAID0/1/5/6/10) bit set for chunk
profile bits.

Do the same work for kernel.

Reported-by: Yoon Jungyeon <jungyeon@gatech.edu>
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202765
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:32 +02:00
Qu Wenruo ab4ba2e133 btrfs: tree-checker: Verify dev item
[BUG]
For fuzzed image whose DEV_ITEM has invalid total_bytes as 0, then
kernel will just panic:
  BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000098
  #PF error: [normal kernel read fault]
  PGD 800000022b2bd067 P4D 800000022b2bd067 PUD 22b2bc067 PMD 0
  Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
  CPU: 0 PID: 1106 Comm: mount Not tainted 5.0.0-rc8+ #9
  RIP: 0010:btrfs_verify_dev_extents+0x2a5/0x5a0
  Call Trace:
   open_ctree+0x160d/0x2149
   btrfs_mount_root+0x5b2/0x680

[CAUSE]
If device extent verification finds a deivce with 0 total_bytes, then it
assumes it's a seed dummy, then search for seed devices.

But in this case, there is no seed device at all, causing NULL pointer.

[FIX]
Since this is caused by fuzzed image, let's go the tree-check way, just
add a new verification for device item.

Reported-by: Yoon Jungyeon <jungyeon@gatech.edu>
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202691
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:32 +02:00
Qu Wenruo 075cb3c78f btrfs: tree-checker: Check chunk item at tree block read time
Since we have btrfs_check_chunk_valid() in tree-checker, let's do
chunk item verification in tree-checker too.

Since the tree-checker is run at endio time, if one chunk leaf fails
chunk verification, we can still retry the other copy, making btrfs more
robust to fuzzed image as we may still get a good chunk item.

Also since we have done chunk verification in tree block read time, skip
the btrfs_check_chunk_valid() call in read_one_chunk() if we're reading
chunk items from leaf.

Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:32 +02:00
Qu Wenruo bf871c3b43 btrfs: tree-checker: Make btrfs_check_chunk_valid() return EUCLEAN instead of EIO
To follow the standard behavior of tree-checker.

Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:32 +02:00
Qu Wenruo f114024376 btrfs: tree-checker: Make chunk item checker messages more readable
Old error message would be something like:
  BTRFS error (device dm-3): invalid chunk num_stipres: 0

New error message would be:
  Btrfs critical (device dm-3): corrupt superblock syschunk array: chunk_start=2097152, invalid chunk num_stripes: 0
Or
  Btrfs critical (device dm-3): corrupt leaf: root=3 block=8388608 slot=3 chunk_start=2097152, invalid chunk num_stripes: 0

And for certain error message, also output expected value.

The error message levels are changed from error to critical.

Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-04-29 19:02:31 +02:00