I would prefer "< 2" .. in both cases (RAID1 and DUP) because this
allow us to implement N-Copy RAID1 in the future.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 03f223aa7194..9024eee889b9 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -6791,10 +6791,10 @@ static int btrfs_check_chunk_valid(struct
btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
}
if ((type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10 && sub_stripes != 2) ||
- (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1 && num_stripes < 1) ||
+ (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1 && num_stripes < 2) ||
(type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5 && num_stripes < 2) ||
(type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6 && num_stripes < 3) ||
- (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP && num_stripes > 2) ||
+ (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP && num_stripes < 2) ||
((type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 &&
num_stripes != 1)) {
btrfs_err(fs_info,
Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Johannes Thumshirn
<jthumsh...@suse.de>:
>
> We recently had a customer issue with a corrupted filesystem. When trying
> to mount this image btrfs panicked with a division by zero in
> calc_stripe_length().
>
> The corrupt chunk had a 'num_stripes' value of 1. calc_stripe_length()
> takes this value and divides it by the number of copies the RAID profile is
> expected to have to calculate the amount of data stripes. As a DUP profile
> is expected to have 2 copies this division resulted in 1/2 = 0. Later then
> the 'data_stripes' variable is used as a divisor in the stripe length
> calculation which results in a division by 0 and thus a kernel panic.
>
> When encountering a filesystem with a DUP block group and a 'num_stripes'
> value unequal to 2, refuse mounting as the image is corrupted and will lead
> to unexpected behaviour.
>
> Code inspection showed a RAID1 block group has the same issues.
>
> Fixes: e06cd3dd7cea ("Btrfs: add validadtion checks for chunk loading")
> Cc: Liu Bo <obuil.li...@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de>
> ---
> Changes to v2:
> - Really use 2 stripes not 1 (Hans)
> Changes to v1:
> - Also add the check for RAID1 (Hans)
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 03f223aa7194..9024eee889b9 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -6791,10 +6791,10 @@ static int btrfs_check_chunk_valid(struct
> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> }
>
> if ((type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10 && sub_stripes != 2) ||
> - (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1 && num_stripes < 1) ||
> + (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1 && num_stripes != 2) ||
> (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5 && num_stripes < 2) ||
> (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6 && num_stripes < 3) ||
> - (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP && num_stripes > 2) ||
> + (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP && num_stripes != 2) ||
> ((type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) == 0 &&
> num_stripes != 1)) {
> btrfs_err(fs_info,
> --
> 2.16.4
>
