On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 03:15:17PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote: > An invalid extent inline ref type could be read from a btrfs image and > it ends up with a panic[1], this set is to deal with the insane value > gracefully in patch 1-2 and clean up BUG() in the code in patch 3-6. > > Patch 7 adds one more check to see if the ref is a valid shared one. > > I'm not sure in the real world what may result in this corruption, but > I've seen several reports on the ML about __btrfs_free_extent saying > something was missing (or simply wrong), while testing this set with > btrfs-corrupt-block, I found that switching ref type could end up that > situation as well, eg. a data extent's ref type > (BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_REF_KEY) is switched to (BTRFS_TREE_BLOCK_REF_KEY). > Hopefully this can give people more sights next time when that > happens. > > [1]:https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg65646.html > > v3: > - btrfs_inline_ref_types -> btrfs_inline_ref_type > - convert WARN(1) to btrfs_err so that we know which btrfs has that error. > > v2: > - add enum type and return BTRFS_REF_TYPE_INVALID instead of -EINVAL. > - remove one more BUG_ON which is in __add_tree_block. > - add validation check for shared refs. > - improve btrfs_print_leaf to show which refs has something wrong. > > Liu Bo (7): > Btrfs: add a helper to retrive extent inline ref type > Btrfs: convert to use btrfs_get_extent_inline_ref_type > Btrfs: remove BUG() in btrfs_extent_inline_ref_size > Btrfs: remove BUG() in print_extent_item > Btrfs: remove BUG() in add_data_reference > Btrfs: remove BUG_ON in __add_tree_block > Btrfs: add one more sanity check for shared ref type
Added to 4.14 queue, some trivial fixups were needed due to other patches. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
