linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] btrfs: more RST delete fixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250107152035.GG31418@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:20:35 +0100
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] btrfs: more RST delete fixes

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 01:47:30PM +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Here's another set of fixes for the delete path on RAID stripe-tree backed
> filesystems.
> 
> Josef's CI system started tripping over a bad key order due to the usage
> of btrfs_set_item_key_safe() in btrfs_partially_delete_raid_extent() and
> while investigating what is happening there I found more bugs and not
> handled corner cases, which resulted in more fixes and test-cases.
> 
> Unfortunately I couldn't fix the bad key order problem and had to resort
> to re-creating the item in btrfs_partially_delete_raid_extent() and insert
> the new one after deleting the old.
> 
> Fstests btrfs/06* are extremely good in exhibiting these failures and
> btrfs/060 has been extensively run while developing this series.
> 
> A full CI run of v1 can be found here:
> https://github.com/btrfs/linux/actions/runs/12291668397
> 
> Changes to v1:
> - Handle extent_map lookup failure in 1/14
> - Don't use key.offset = -1 for initial search in 3/14
> - Don't break before calling btrfs_previous_item if we're on slot 0 in
>   6/14
> - Remove btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty calls
> - Remove line breaks at 80 chars if we're just a bit over
> - Fix multiple issues on comment styling
> 
> Link to v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1733989299.git.jth@kernel.org
> 
> Note:
> I did not copy the implementation of btrfs_drop_extents() as I'd like to
> have feedback on this variant first, before putting the time and energy in
> a "completely new" implementation.
> 
> ---
> Johannes Thumshirn (14):
>       btrfs: don't try to delete RAID stripe-extents if we don't need to
>       btrfs: assert RAID stripe-extent length is always greater than 0
>       btrfs: fix search when deleting a RAID stripe-extent
>       btrfs: fix front delete range calculation for RAID stripe extents
>       btrfs: fix tail delete of RAID stripe-extents
>       btrfs: fix deletion of a range spanning parts two RAID stripe extents
>       btrfs: implement hole punching for RAID stripe extents
>       btrfs: don't use btrfs_set_item_key_safe on RAID stripe-extents
>       btrfs: selftests: check for correct return value of failed lookup
>       btrfs: selftests: don't split RAID extents in half
>       btrfs: selftests: test RAID stripe-tree deletion spanning two items
>       btrfs: selftests: add selftest for punching holes into the RAID stripe extents
>       btrfs: selftests: add test for punching a hole into 3 RAID stripe-extents
>       btrfs: selftests: add a selftest for deleting two out of three extents
> 
>  fs/btrfs/ctree.c                        |   1 +
>  fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c             | 146 ++++++-
>  fs/btrfs/tests/raid-stripe-tree-tests.c | 660 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 776 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

As this is completely in RST I'm considering it safe for late merge
(ideally by the end of this week before rc7 is out).