[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5JubamuduQ8oUex@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:08:29 -0500
From: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
To: Ye Bin <yebin@...weicloud.com>
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jack@...e.cz, Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>,
syzbot+05a0f0ccab4a25626e38@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] ext4: add check pending tree when evict inode
* Ye Bin <yebin@...weicloud.com>:
> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
>
> Syzbot found the following issue:
> BUG: memory leak
> unreferenced object 0xffff8881bde17420 (size 32):
> comm "rep", pid 2327, jiffies 4295381963 (age 32.265s)
> hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
> backtrace:
> [<00000000ac6d38f8>] __insert_pending+0x13c/0x2d0
> [<00000000d717de3b>] ext4_es_insert_delayed_block+0x399/0x4e0
> [<000000004be03913>] ext4_da_map_blocks.constprop.0+0x739/0xfa0
> [<00000000885a832a>] ext4_da_get_block_prep+0x10c/0x440
> [<0000000029b7f8ef>] __block_write_begin_int+0x28d/0x860
> [<00000000e182ebc3>] ext4_da_write_inline_data_begin+0x2d1/0xf30
> [<00000000ced0c8a2>] ext4_da_write_begin+0x612/0x860
> [<000000008d5f27fa>] generic_perform_write+0x215/0x4d0
> [<00000000552c1cde>] ext4_buffered_write_iter+0x101/0x3b0
> [<0000000052177ae8>] do_iter_readv_writev+0x19f/0x340
> [<000000004b9de834>] do_iter_write+0x13b/0x650
> [<00000000e2401b9b>] iter_file_splice_write+0x5a5/0xab0
> [<0000000023aa5d90>] direct_splice_actor+0x103/0x1e0
> [<0000000089e00fc1>] splice_direct_to_actor+0x2c9/0x7b0
> [<000000004386851e>] do_splice_direct+0x159/0x280
> [<00000000b567e609>] do_sendfile+0x932/0x1200
>
> Above issue fixed by
> commit 1b8f787ef547 ("ext4: fix warning in 'ext4_da_release_space'")
> in this scene. To make things better add check pending tree when evict
> inode.
> According to Eric Whitney's suggestion, bigalloc + inline is still in
> development so we just add test for this situation, there isn't need to
> add code to free pending tree entry.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+05a0f0ccab4a25626e38@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/super.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index 4b2d257d3845..15b6634975e7 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -1391,6 +1391,11 @@ static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> "Inode %lu (%p): i_reserved_data_blocks (%u) not cleared!",
> inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode),
> EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks);
> +
> + if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_pending_tree.root))
> + ext4_error(inode->i_sb,
> + "Inode %lu (%p): i_pending_tree not empty!",
> + inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode));
> }
>
> static void init_once(void *foo)
> --
Looks good. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
> 2.31.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists