Message-ID: <20170925011225.10029-16-alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:12:45 +0000
From:   "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
To:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Robbie Ko <robbieko@...ology.com>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
        "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Subject: [PATCH review for 4.9 16/50] Btrfs: send, fix failure to rename top
 level inode due to name collision

From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@...ology.com>

[ Upstream commit 4dd9920d991745c4a16f53a8f615f706fbe4b3f7 ]

Under certain situations, an incremental send operation can fail due to a
premature attempt to create a new top level inode (a direct child of the
subvolume/snapshot root) whose name collides with another inode that was
removed from the send snapshot.

Consider the following example scenario.

Parent snapshot:

  .                 (ino 256, gen 8)
  |---- a1/         (ino 257, gen 9)
  |---- a2/         (ino 258, gen 9)

Send snapshot:

  .                 (ino 256, gen 3)
  |---- a2/         (ino 257, gen 7)

In this scenario, when receiving the incremental send stream, the btrfs
receive command fails like this (ran in verbose mode, -vv argument):

  rmdir a1
  mkfile o257-7-0
  rename o257-7-0 -> a2
  ERROR: rename o257-7-0 -> a2 failed: Is a directory

What happens when computing the incremental send stream is:

1) An operation to remove the directory with inode number 257 and
   generation 9 is issued.

2) An operation to create the inode with number 257 and generation 7 is
   issued. This creates the inode with an orphanized name of "o257-7-0".

3) An operation rename the new inode 257 to its final name, "a2", is
   issued. This is incorrect because inode 258, which has the same name
   and it's a child of the same parent (root inode 256), was not yet
   processed and therefore no rmdir operation for it was yet issued.
   The rename operation is issued because we fail to detect that the
   name of the new inode 257 collides with inode 258, because their
   parent, a subvolume/snapshot root (inode 256) has a different
   generation in both snapshots.

So fix this by ignoring the generation value of a parent directory that
matches a root inode (number 256) when we are checking if the name of the
inode currently being processed collides with the name of some other
inode that was not yet processed.

We can achieve this scenario of different inodes with the same number but
different generation values either by mounting a filesystem with the inode
cache option (-o inode_cache) or by creating and sending snapshots across
different filesystems, like in the following example:

  $ mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb
  $ mount /dev/sdb /mnt
  $ mkdir /mnt/a1
  $ mkdir /mnt/a2
  $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap1
  $ btrfs send /mnt/snap1 -f /tmp/1.snap
  $ umount /mnt

  $ mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdc
  $ mount /dev/sdc /mnt
  $ touch /mnt/a2
  $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap2
  $ btrfs receive /mnt -f /tmp/1.snap
  # Take note that once the filesystem is created, its current
  # generation has value 7 so the inode from the second snapshot has
  # a generation value of 7. And after receiving the first snapshot
  # the filesystem is at a generation value of 10, because the call to
  # create the second snapshot bumps the generation to 8 (the snapshot
  # creation ioctl does a transaction commit), the receive command calls
  # the snapshot creation ioctl to create the first snapshot, which bumps
  # the filesystem's generation to 9, and finally when the receive
  # operation finishes it calls an ioctl to transition the first snapshot
  # (snap1) from RW mode to RO mode, which does another transaction commit
  # and bumps the filesystem's generation to 10.
  $ rm -f /tmp/1.snap
  $ btrfs send /mnt/snap1 -f /tmp/1.snap
  $ btrfs send -p /mnt/snap1 /mnt/snap2 -f /tmp/2.snap
  $ umount /mnt

  $ mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdd
  $ mount /dev/sdd /mnt
  $ btrfs receive /mnt /tmp/1.snap
  # Receive of snapshot snap2 used to fail.
  $ btrfs receive /mnt /tmp/2.snap

Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@...ology.com>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
[Rewrote changelog to be more precise and clear]
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>

Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/send.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
index 71261b459863..77f9efc1f7aa 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -1680,6 +1680,9 @@ static int is_inode_existent(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 ino, u64 gen)
 {
 	int ret;
 
+	if (ino == BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID)
+		return 1;
+
 	ret = get_cur_inode_state(sctx, ino, gen);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto out;
@@ -1865,7 +1868,7 @@ static int will_overwrite_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 dir, u64 dir_gen,
 	 * not deleted and then re-created, if it was then we have no overwrite
 	 * and we can just unlink this entry.
 	 */
-	if (sctx->parent_root) {
+	if (sctx->parent_root && dir != BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID) {
 		ret = get_inode_info(sctx->parent_root, dir, NULL, &gen, NULL,
 				     NULL, NULL, NULL);
 		if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENOENT)
-- 
2.11.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists