linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.17 010/146] Btrfs: fix build_backref

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20141028033343.882400200@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:32:32 +0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Marc MERLIN <marc@...lins.org>,
	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.17 010/146] Btrfs: fix build_backref_tree issue with multiple shared blocks

3.17-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>

commit bbe9051441effce51c9a533d2c56440df64db2d7 upstream.

Marc Merlin sent me a broken fs image months ago where it would blow up in the
upper->checked BUG_ON() in build_backref_tree.  This is because we had a
scenario like this

block a -- level 4 (not shared)
   |
block b -- level 3 (reloc block, shared)
   |
block c -- level 2 (not shared)
   |
block d -- level 1 (shared)
   |
block e -- level 0 (shared)

We go to build a backref tree for block e, we notice block d is shared and add
it to the list of blocks to lookup it's backrefs for.  Now when we loop around
we will check edges for the block, so we will see we looked up block c last
time.  So we lookup block d and then see that the block that points to it is
block c and we can just skip that edge since we've already been up this path.
The problem is because we clear need_check when we see block d (as it is shared)
we never add block b as needing to be checked.  And because block c is in our
path already we bail out before we walk up to block b and add it to the backref
check list.

To fix this we need to reset need_check if we trip over a block that doesn't
need to be checked.  This will make sure that any subsequent blocks in the path
as we're walking up afterwards are added to the list to be processed.  With this
patch I can now mount Marc's fs image and it'll complete the balance without
panicing.  Thanks,

Reported-by: Marc MERLIN <marc@...lins.org>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/btrfs/relocation.c |    5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
@@ -978,8 +978,11 @@ again:
 					need_check = false;
 					list_add_tail(&edge->list[UPPER],
 						      &list);
-				} else
+				} else {
+					if (upper->checked)
+						need_check = true;
 					INIT_LIST_HEAD(&edge->list[UPPER]);
+				}
 			} else {
 				upper = rb_entry(rb_node, struct backref_node,
 						 rb_node);

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/