From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
blkaddr is in the range or not.
Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
Reported-by: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
@@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
blkaddr, exist);
set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
- WARN_ON(1);
}
return exist;
}
@@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
blkaddr);
set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
- WARN_ON(1);
return false;
} else {
return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);
--
2.25.1
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:46 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2022/4/9 9:34, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> >>> From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
> >>> DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
> >>> blkaddr is in the range or not.
> >>
> >> If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
> >> It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
> >>
> >> So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
> >
> > related issue? Can you explain a little?
> >
> > If you mean if this warning occurs, any other issues or crash
>
> I mean have you seen any warning info printed in the path of
> f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr() before applying this patch, and if so, w/ what
> reproducer? or you just figure out this patch from perspective of code
> review?
Yes, I have seen both warning information from Syzbot [1] and my local
syzkaller instance.
In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if the following condition is satisfied,
i.e., blkaddr is not in the right range [2], it will directly invoke
one WARN_ON.
if (unlikely(blkaddr >= MAX_BLKADDR(sbi) ||
blkaddr < MAIN_BLKADDR(sbi))) {
This is the case on Syzbot.
Otherwise, it will jump into __is_bitmap_valid. And if the following
condition is satisfied [3], it will trigger another WARN_ON.
exist = f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map);
if (!exist && type == DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE) {
This appears in my local syzbot instance, but unfortunately it does
not get any reproducer.
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc
[2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c#L187
[3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c#L135
>
> Thanks,
>
> > behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the
> > WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with
> > the corresponding reproducer.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
> >>>
> >>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: [email protected]
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> >>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> >>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
> >>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
> >>> blkaddr, exist);
> >>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> >>> - WARN_ON(1);
> >>> }
> >>> return exist;
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
> >>> blkaddr);
> >>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> >>> - WARN_ON(1);
> >>> return false;
> >>> } else {
> >>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);
On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
>
> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
> DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
> blkaddr is in the range or not.
If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
Thanks,
>
> Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
>
> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
>
> Reported-by: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
> blkaddr, exist);
> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> - WARN_ON(1);
> }
> return exist;
> }
> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
> blkaddr);
> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> - WARN_ON(1);
> return false;
> } else {
> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> >
> > In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
> > DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
> > blkaddr is in the range or not.
>
> If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
> It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
>
> So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
related issue? Can you explain a little?
If you mean if this warning occurs, any other issues or crash
behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the
WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with
the corresponding reproducer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
> >
> > Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
> >
> > Reported-by: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> > index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> > @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
> > f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
> > blkaddr, exist);
> > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> > - WARN_ON(1);
> > }
> > return exist;
> > }
> > @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
> > blkaddr);
> > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> > - WARN_ON(1);
> > return false;
> > } else {
> > return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);
On 2022/4/9 14:42, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:46 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022/4/9 9:34, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>>>>> From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
>>>>> DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
>>>>> blkaddr is in the range or not.
>>>>
>>>> If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
>>>> It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
>>>>
>>>> So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
>>>
>>> related issue? Can you explain a little?
>>>
>>> If you mean if this warning occurs, any other issues or crash
>>
>> I mean have you seen any warning info printed in the path of
>> f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr() before applying this patch, and if so, w/ what
>> reproducer? or you just figure out this patch from perspective of code
>> review?
>
> Yes, I have seen both warning information from Syzbot [1] and my local
> syzkaller instance.
>
> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if the following condition is satisfied,
> i.e., blkaddr is not in the right range [2], it will directly invoke
> one WARN_ON.
>
> if (unlikely(blkaddr >= MAX_BLKADDR(sbi) ||
> blkaddr < MAIN_BLKADDR(sbi))) {
>
> This is the case on Syzbot.
>
> Otherwise, it will jump into __is_bitmap_valid. And if the following
> condition is satisfied [3], it will trigger another WARN_ON.
>
> exist = f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map);
> if (!exist && type == DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE) {
>
> This appears in my local syzbot instance, but unfortunately it does
> not get any reproducer.
Oh, it occurs in syzbot test, I guess it is possible that f2fs prints such
warning info after blkaddr of node/data block was fuzzed to invalid one.
I prefer to keep WARN_ON() to catch more info of bugs found by non-fuzzed
type test.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
>
> [1] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2Fbug%3Fextid%3D763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UVSSS9IknYLJHzqqJAN5HmPgJ8GNczvi6%2FuQf2n3vlY%3D&reserved=0
> [2] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L187&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Sf%2Bx8WCAXf5c4%2Bins46saTsTN5uNTrnIceAP3oCWnQw%3D&reserved=0
> [3] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L135&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ly%2FBL5oFAWZmXwbN6TaYCExroDE8%2Fsli1alaJwR4wvU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the
>>> WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with
>>> the corresponding reproducer.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: [email protected]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>>>>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
>>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
>>>>> blkaddr, exist);
>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>>>> }
>>>>> return exist;
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
>>>>> blkaddr);
>>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>>>> return false;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:10 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2022/4/9 14:42, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:46 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2022/4/9 9:34, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> >>>>> From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
> >>>>> DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
> >>>>> blkaddr is in the range or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
> >>>> It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
> >>>
> >>> related issue? Can you explain a little?
> >>>
> >>> If you mean if this warning occurs, any other issues or crash
> >>
> >> I mean have you seen any warning info printed in the path of
> >> f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr() before applying this patch, and if so, w/ what
> >> reproducer? or you just figure out this patch from perspective of code
> >> review?
> >
> > Yes, I have seen both warning information from Syzbot [1] and my local
> > syzkaller instance.
> >
> > In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if the following condition is satisfied,
> > i.e., blkaddr is not in the right range [2], it will directly invoke
> > one WARN_ON.
> >
> > if (unlikely(blkaddr >= MAX_BLKADDR(sbi) ||
> > blkaddr < MAIN_BLKADDR(sbi))) {
> >
> > This is the case on Syzbot.
> >
> > Otherwise, it will jump into __is_bitmap_valid. And if the following
> > condition is satisfied [3], it will trigger another WARN_ON.
> >
> > exist = f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->cur_valid_map);
> > if (!exist && type == DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE) {
> >
> > This appears in my local syzbot instance, but unfortunately it does
> > not get any reproducer.
>
> Oh, it occurs in syzbot test, I guess it is possible that f2fs prints such
> warning info after blkaddr of node/data block was fuzzed to invalid one.
>
> I prefer to keep WARN_ON() to catch more info of bugs found by non-fuzzed
> type test.
>
> Thoughts?
I am fine with both options. I can remove the WARN_ON in my local
syzkaller instance and continue fuzzing Linux kernel.
+Dmitry Vyukov how do you think? If WARN_ON is kept, this crash will
occur on Syzbot from time to time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > [1] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsyzkaller.appspot.com%2Fbug%3Fextid%3D763ae12a2ede1d99d4dc&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=UVSSS9IknYLJHzqqJAN5HmPgJ8GNczvi6%2FuQf2n3vlY%3D&reserved=0
> > [2] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L187&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Sf%2Bx8WCAXf5c4%2Bins46saTsTN5uNTrnIceAP3oCWnQw%3D&reserved=0
> > [3] https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Ffs%2Ff2fs%2Fcheckpoint.c%23L135&data=04%7C01%7Cchao.yu%40oppo.com%7Cff92e63621b24fc75a4908da19f45860%7Cf1905eb1c35341c5951662b4a54b5ee6%7C0%7C0%7C637850834521060840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ly%2FBL5oFAWZmXwbN6TaYCExroDE8%2Fsli1alaJwR4wvU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the
> >>> WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with
> >>> the corresponding reproducer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reported-by: [email protected]
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> >>>>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
> >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> >>>>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
> >>>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
> >>>>> blkaddr, exist);
> >>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> >>>>> - WARN_ON(1);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> return exist;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
> >>>>> blkaddr);
> >>>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> >>>>> - WARN_ON(1);
> >>>>> return false;
> >>>>> } else {
> >>>>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
On 2022/4/9 9:34, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022/4/8 13:22, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>>> From: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> In f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr, if type is DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE or
>>> DATA_GENERIC_ENHANCE_READ, it invokes WARN_ON(1) not matter
>>> blkaddr is in the range or not.
>>
>> If we run into the path where we invoke WARN_ON(1) in f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(),
>> It means f2fs image may be broken, or there is a bug in f2fs.
>>
>> So, do you suffer any related issue in your environment?
>
> related issue? Can you explain a little?
>
> If you mean if this warning occurs, any other issues or crash
I mean have you seen any warning info printed in the path of
f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr() before applying this patch, and if so, w/ what
reproducer? or you just figure out this patch from perspective of code
review?
Thanks,
> behaviors are generated? I tested on the syzbot. After removing the
> WARN_ON, there is no abnormal issue or crash behaviors followed with
> the corresponding reproducer.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Fix this by removing WARN_ON.
>>>
>>> Note that, syzbot patch testing does not incur any further issues
>>>
>>> Reported-by: [email protected]
>>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 2 --
>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>>> index f5366feea82d..521498b2dd8c 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>>> @@ -158,7 +158,6 @@ static bool __is_bitmap_valid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, block_t blkaddr,
>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "Inconsistent error blkaddr:%u, sit bitmap:%d",
>>> blkaddr, exist);
>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>> }
>>> return exist;
>>> }
>>> @@ -196,7 +195,6 @@ bool f2fs_is_valid_blkaddr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "access invalid blkaddr:%u",
>>> blkaddr);
>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>> return false;
>>> } else {
>>> return __is_bitmap_valid(sbi, blkaddr, type);