On 2021/12/27 14:11, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[BUG]
When passing a btrfs with NO_HOLE feature to U-boot, and if one file
contains holes, then the hash of the file is not correct in U-boot:
# mkfs.btrfs -f test.img # Since v5.15, mkfs defaults to NO_HOLES
# mount test.img /mnt/btrfs
# xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 4k" -c "pwrite 8k 4k" /mnt/btrfs/file
# md5sum /mnt/btrfs/file
277f3840b275c74d01e979ea9d75ac19 /mnt/btrfs/file
# umount /mnt/btrfs
# ./u-boot
=> host bind 0 /home/adam/test.img
=> ls host 0
< > 12288 Mon Dec 27 05:35:23 2021 file
=> load host 0 0x1000000 file
12288 bytes read in 0 ms
=> md5sum 0x1000000 0x3000
md5 for 01000000 ... 01002fff ==> 855ffdbe4d0ccc5acab92e1b5330e4c1
The md5sum doesn't match at all.
[CAUSE]
In U-boot btrfs implementation, the function btrfs_read_file() has the
following iteration for file extent iteration:
/* Read the aligned part */
while (cur < aligned_end) {
ret = lookup_data_extent(root, &path, ino, cur, &next_offset);
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
if (ret > 0) {
/* No next, direct exit */
if (!next_offset) {
ret = 0;
goto out;
}
}
/* Read file extent */
But for NO_HOLES features, hole extents will not have any extent item
for it.
Thus if @cur is at a hole, lookup_data_extent() will just return >0, and
update @next_offset.
But we still believe there is some data to read for @cur for ret > 0
case, causing we read extent data from the next file extent.
This means, what we do for above NO_HOLES btrfs is:
- Read 4K data from disk to file offset [0, 4K)
So far the data is still correct
- Read 4K data from disk to file offset [4K, 8K)
We didn't skip the 4K hole, but read the data at file offset [8K, 12K)
into file offset [4K, 8K).
This causes the checksum mismatch.
[FIX]
Add extra check to skip to the next non-hole range after
lookup_data_extent().
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
---
This bug exposed another missing link, that we don't have good test
coverage in U-boot btrfs.
This is partially caused by the fact that, btrfs-progs code is not
designed to read file contents, but just to check the cross-reference
(aka, btrfs-check).
If we really only want read-only support in U-boot, and don't ever plan
to add write support, then I'd say the btrfs-fuse project
(https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-fuse/) is more suitable for U-boot.
As that project already has full fs content verification selftest along
with extra multi-device recovery tests.
And shares the same code style between btrfs-progs/kernel.
OK, things are not that bad.
In fact, the btrfs_read_file() implementation in btrfs-fuse has the same
naming, same lookup_file_extent() (just a little naming different than
lookup_data_extent()), same parameter list.
Just without the unaligned sector handling (handled by FUSE, and it may
also be unnecessary for U-boot too), and already have the correct
handling for lookup_file_extent(), thanks to the selftest.
So this already means, it can be pretty easy for U-boot to take code
from btrfs-fuse part by part, without huge refactor again.
Thanks,
Qu
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 2c2379303d74..d00b5153336d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -717,6 +717,14 @@ int btrfs_file_read(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 ino, u64
file_offset, u64 len,
ret = 0;
goto out;
}
+ /*
+ * Find a extent gap, mostly caused by NO_HOLE feature.
+ * Just to next offset directly.
+ */
+ if (next_offset > cur) {
+ cur = next_offset;
+ continue;
+ }
}
fi = btrfs_item_ptr(path.nodes[0], path.slots[0],
struct btrfs_file_extent_item);
