e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
not being detected.
>From a part of a dump_extents output:
1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
the tree.
This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
---
e2fsck/pass1.c | 13 +++++++++----
e2fsck/problem.c | 6 ++++++
e2fsck/problem.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
index a20b57b..198e9a0 100644
--- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
+++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
@@ -1848,7 +1848,7 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
struct process_block_struct *pb,
- blk64_t start_block,
+ blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
{
struct ext2fs_extent extent;
@@ -1891,6 +1891,9 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
+ else if (end_block &&
+ (extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len) > end_block)
+ problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
else if (is_leaf &&
@@ -1937,10 +1940,11 @@ fix_problem_now:
}
if (!is_leaf) {
- blk64_t lblk;
+ blk64_t lblk, lblk_end;
blk = extent.e_pblk;
lblk = extent.e_lblk;
+ lblk_end = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len;
pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
if (pctx->errcode) {
@@ -1965,7 +1969,8 @@ fix_problem_now:
if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
}
- scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
+ scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
+ lblk_end, ehandle);
if (pctx->errcode)
return;
pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
@@ -2084,7 +2089,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
}
- scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
+ scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
if (pctx->errcode &&
fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
pb->num_blocks = 0;
diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
index 76bc1d5..b0a6e19 100644
--- a/e2fsck/problem.c
+++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
@@ -1008,6 +1008,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
"Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
+ /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
+ { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
+ N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
+ PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
+
+
/* Pass 1b errors */
/* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
index d2b6df4..fcdc1a1 100644
--- a/e2fsck/problem.h
+++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
@@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ struct problem_context {
/* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
#define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
+#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
/*
* Pass 1b errors
*/
On 4/3/13 2:08 PM, David Jeffery wrote:
> e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
> extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
> not being detected.
>
> From a part of a dump_extents output:
>
> 1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
> 1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
>
> e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
> extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
> the tree.
>
> This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
Here's an image which demonstrates this, current e2fsck does not detect
the error.
-Eric
> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
> ---
> e2fsck/pass1.c | 13 +++++++++----
> e2fsck/problem.c | 6 ++++++
> e2fsck/problem.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> index a20b57b..198e9a0 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> @@ -1848,7 +1848,7 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
>
> static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> struct process_block_struct *pb,
> - blk64_t start_block,
> + blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
> ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
> {
> struct ext2fs_extent extent;
> @@ -1891,6 +1891,9 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
> else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
> problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
> + else if (end_block &&
> + (extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len) > end_block)
> + problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
> else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
> else if (is_leaf &&
> @@ -1937,10 +1940,11 @@ fix_problem_now:
> }
>
> if (!is_leaf) {
> - blk64_t lblk;
> + blk64_t lblk, lblk_end;
>
> blk = extent.e_pblk;
> lblk = extent.e_lblk;
> + lblk_end = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
> if (pctx->errcode) {
> @@ -1965,7 +1969,8 @@ fix_problem_now:
> if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
> ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
> }
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
> + lblk_end, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode)
> return;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> @@ -2084,7 +2089,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
> }
>
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode &&
> fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
> pb->num_blocks = 0;
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> index 76bc1d5..b0a6e19 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> @@ -1008,6 +1008,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
> "Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
> PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>
> + /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
> + { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
> + N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
> + PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
> +
> +
> /* Pass 1b errors */
>
> /* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
> index d2b6df4..fcdc1a1 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.h
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ struct problem_context {
> /* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
> #define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
>
> +#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
> /*
> * Pass 1b errors
> */
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On 4/3/13 2:08 PM, David Jeffery wrote:
> e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
> extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
> not being detected.
>
> From a part of a dump_extents output:
>
> 1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
> 1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
>
> e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
> extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
> the tree.
>
> This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
> ---
> e2fsck/pass1.c | 13 +++++++++----
> e2fsck/problem.c | 6 ++++++
> e2fsck/problem.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> index a20b57b..198e9a0 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> @@ -1848,7 +1848,7 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
>
> static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> struct process_block_struct *pb,
> - blk64_t start_block,
> + blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
> ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
> {
> struct ext2fs_extent extent;
> @@ -1891,6 +1891,9 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
> else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
> problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
> + else if (end_block &&
> + (extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len) > end_block)
> + problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
thinking out loud; let's say e_lblk is 10 and len is 10. So the
extent covers blocks 10->19, and e_lbk + e_len is 20, though
the last block in the range is 19.
But you pass in the same value (lblk + len) as "last block" so I guess
it matches up, it just requires some thought.
It might be better to do this in the caller:
lblk_end = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
and this in the test:
else if (end_block &&
(extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1) > end_block)
just so that "end_block" really is the end block?
> else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
> else if (is_leaf &&
> @@ -1937,10 +1940,11 @@ fix_problem_now:
> }
>
> if (!is_leaf) {
> - blk64_t lblk;
> + blk64_t lblk, lblk_end;
>
> blk = extent.e_pblk;
> lblk = extent.e_lblk;
> + lblk_end = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len;
maybe extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1 ?
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
> if (pctx->errcode) {
> @@ -1965,7 +1969,8 @@ fix_problem_now:
> if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
> ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
> }
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
> + lblk_end, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode)
> return;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> @@ -2084,7 +2089,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
> }
>
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
Other than the above nitpick, I think this does what it advertises, so:
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
Thanks,
-Eric
> if (pctx->errcode &&
> fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
> pb->num_blocks = 0;
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> index 76bc1d5..b0a6e19 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> @@ -1008,6 +1008,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
> "Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
> PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>
> + /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
> + { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
> + N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
> + PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
> +
> +
> /* Pass 1b errors */
>
> /* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
> index d2b6df4..fcdc1a1 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.h
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ struct problem_context {
> /* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
> #define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
>
> +#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
> /*
> * Pass 1b errors
> */
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:53:51PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> Here's an image which demonstrates this, current e2fsck does not detect
> the error.
Thanks. For future reference, here's how you can use debugfs to
generate a much smaller image which demonstrates the problem, suitable
for use in a regression test.
- Ted
#!/bin/sh
dd if=/dev/zero of=image bs=1k count=256
mke2fs -Ft ext4 image
debugfs -w image << EOF
write /dev/null testfile
extent_open testfile
insert_node 0 15 100
insert_node --after 15 15 115
insert_node --after 30 15 130
insert_node --after 45 15 145
split
down
split
root
down
next
replace_node 15 30 200
extent_close
set_inode_field testfile i_size 61400
set_inode_field testfile i_blocks 154
setb 100 15
setb 130 30
setb 200 30
set_bg 0 free_blocks_count 156
set_bg 0 bg_checksum calc
set_super_value free_blocks_count 156
EOF
Thanks for the review. I took your changes, and added a bit more code
cleanup.
Here's the version I ultimately checked into my tree.
- Ted
commit d3f32c2db8f11c87aa7939d78e7eb4c373f7034f
Author: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Jun 6 20:04:33 2013 -0400
e2fsck: detect invalid extents at the end of an extent-block
e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
not being detected.
From a part of a dump_extents output:
1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
the tree.
This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
index de00638..af9afe3 100644
--- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
+++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
@@ -1760,11 +1760,11 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
struct process_block_struct *pb,
- blk64_t start_block,
+ blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
{
struct ext2fs_extent extent;
- blk64_t blk;
+ blk64_t blk, last_lblk;
e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt;
unsigned int i;
int is_dir, is_leaf;
@@ -1780,6 +1780,7 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
while (!pctx->errcode && info.num_entries-- > 0) {
is_leaf = extent.e_flags & EXT2_EXTENT_FLAGS_LEAF;
is_dir = LINUX_S_ISDIR(pctx->inode->i_mode);
+ last_lblk = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
problem = 0;
if (extent.e_pblk == 0 ||
@@ -1788,6 +1789,8 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
+ else if (end_block && last_lblk > end_block)
+ problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
else if (is_leaf &&
@@ -1822,10 +1825,9 @@ report_problem:
}
if (!is_leaf) {
- blk64_t lblk;
+ blk64_t lblk = extent.e_lblk;
blk = extent.e_pblk;
- lblk = extent.e_lblk;
pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
if (pctx->errcode) {
@@ -1847,7 +1849,8 @@ report_problem:
if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
}
- scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
+ scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
+ last_lblk, ehandle);
if (pctx->errcode)
return;
pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
@@ -1928,10 +1931,10 @@ report_problem:
if (is_dir && extent.e_len > 0)
pb->last_db_block = blockcnt - 1;
pb->previous_block = extent.e_pblk + extent.e_len - 1;
- start_block = pb->last_block = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
+ start_block = pb->last_block = last_lblk;
if (is_leaf && !is_dir &&
!(extent.e_flags & EXT2_EXTENT_FLAGS_UNINIT))
- pb->last_init_lblock = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
+ pb->last_init_lblock = last_lblk;
next:
pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
EXT2_EXTENT_NEXT_SIB,
@@ -1967,7 +1970,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
}
- scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
+ scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
if (pctx->errcode &&
fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
pb->num_blocks = 0;
diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
index 05ef626..6d03765 100644
--- a/e2fsck/problem.c
+++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
@@ -954,6 +954,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
"Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
+ /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
+ { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
+ N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
+ PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
+
+
/* Pass 1b errors */
/* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
index aed524d..b578678 100644
--- a/e2fsck/problem.h
+++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
@@ -561,6 +561,7 @@ struct problem_context {
/* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
#define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
+#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
/*
* Pass 1b errors
*/
On 6/6/13 10:35 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:53:51PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> Here's an image which demonstrates this, current e2fsck does not detect
>> the error.
>
> Thanks. For future reference, here's how you can use debugfs to
> generate a much smaller image which demonstrates the problem, suitable
> for use in a regression test.
Ah. Well, I did use debugfs to make it, but not quite so compactly. :)
Thanks,
-Eric
> - Ted
>
> #!/bin/sh
> dd if=/dev/zero of=image bs=1k count=256
> mke2fs -Ft ext4 image
> debugfs -w image << EOF
> write /dev/null testfile
> extent_open testfile
> insert_node 0 15 100
> insert_node --after 15 15 115
> insert_node --after 30 15 130
> insert_node --after 45 15 145
> split
> down
> split
> root
> down
> next
> replace_node 15 30 200
> extent_close
> set_inode_field testfile i_size 61400
> set_inode_field testfile i_blocks 154
> setb 100 15
> setb 130 30
> setb 200 30
> set_bg 0 free_blocks_count 156
> set_bg 0 bg_checksum calc
> set_super_value free_blocks_count 156
> EOF
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:39:34 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the review. I took your changes, and added a bit more code
> cleanup.
>
> Here's the version I ultimately checked into my tree.
This patch cause regression
TESTCASE:
#!/bin/bash
IMG=./IMG
MNT=/mnt
dd if=/dev/zero of=$IMG bs=1M count=16
mkfs.ext4 -b4096 -F $IMG
mount $IMG $MNT -oloop || exit 1
fallocate -n -l $((1024*1024*2)) $MNT/f1
for ((i=0;i<4;i++))
do
dd if=/dev/zero of=$MNT/f1 bs=4k count=1 seek=$((i*100)) conv=notrunc
done
sync
filefrag -v $MNT/f1
umount $MNT
e2fsck -f -n $IMG
>
> - Ted
>
> commit d3f32c2db8f11c87aa7939d78e7eb4c373f7034f
> Author: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu Jun 6 20:04:33 2013 -0400
>
> e2fsck: detect invalid extents at the end of an extent-block
>
> e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
> extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
> not being detected.
>
> From a part of a dump_extents output:
>
> 1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
> 1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
> 2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
> 2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
>
> e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
> extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
> the tree.
>
> This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> index de00638..af9afe3 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
> @@ -1760,11 +1760,11 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
>
> static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> struct process_block_struct *pb,
> - blk64_t start_block,
> + blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
> ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
> {
> struct ext2fs_extent extent;
> - blk64_t blk;
> + blk64_t blk, last_lblk;
> e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt;
> unsigned int i;
> int is_dir, is_leaf;
> @@ -1780,6 +1780,7 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> while (!pctx->errcode && info.num_entries-- > 0) {
> is_leaf = extent.e_flags & EXT2_EXTENT_FLAGS_LEAF;
> is_dir = LINUX_S_ISDIR(pctx->inode->i_mode);
> + last_lblk = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
>
> problem = 0;
> if (extent.e_pblk == 0 ||
> @@ -1788,6 +1789,8 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
> else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
> problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
> + else if (end_block && last_lblk > end_block)
> + problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
> else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
> else if (is_leaf &&
> @@ -1822,10 +1825,9 @@ report_problem:
> }
>
> if (!is_leaf) {
> - blk64_t lblk;
> + blk64_t lblk = extent.e_lblk;
>
> blk = extent.e_pblk;
> - lblk = extent.e_lblk;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
> if (pctx->errcode) {
> @@ -1847,7 +1849,8 @@ report_problem:
> if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
> ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
> }
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
> + last_lblk, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode)
> return;
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> @@ -1928,10 +1931,10 @@ report_problem:
> if (is_dir && extent.e_len > 0)
> pb->last_db_block = blockcnt - 1;
> pb->previous_block = extent.e_pblk + extent.e_len - 1;
> - start_block = pb->last_block = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
> + start_block = pb->last_block = last_lblk;
> if (is_leaf && !is_dir &&
> !(extent.e_flags & EXT2_EXTENT_FLAGS_UNINIT))
> - pb->last_init_lblock = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
> + pb->last_init_lblock = last_lblk;
> next:
> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
> EXT2_EXTENT_NEXT_SIB,
> @@ -1967,7 +1970,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
> ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
> }
>
> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
> if (pctx->errcode &&
> fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
> pb->num_blocks = 0;
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> index 05ef626..6d03765 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> @@ -954,6 +954,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
> "Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
> PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>
> + /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
> + { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
> + N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
> + PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
> +
> +
> /* Pass 1b errors */
>
> /* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
> index aed524d..b578678 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/problem.h
> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
> @@ -561,6 +561,7 @@ struct problem_context {
> /* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
> #define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
>
> +#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
> /*
> * Pass 1b errors
> */
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 7/16/13 9:24 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:39:34 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thanks for the review. I took your changes, and added a bit more code
>> cleanup.
>>
>> Here's the version I ultimately checked into my tree.
> This patch cause regression
> TESTCASE:
> #!/bin/bash
>
> IMG=./IMG
> MNT=/mnt
> dd if=/dev/zero of=$IMG bs=1M count=16
> mkfs.ext4 -b4096 -F $IMG
> mount $IMG $MNT -oloop || exit 1
> fallocate -n -l $((1024*1024*2)) $MNT/f1
>
> for ((i=0;i<4;i++))
> do
> dd if=/dev/zero of=$MNT/f1 bs=4k count=1 seek=$((i*100)) conv=notrunc
> done
> sync
> filefrag -v $MNT/f1
> umount $MNT
> e2fsck -f -n $IMG
Yes,this is the case where extents past EOF aren't updating the parent
node in the extent tree:
e2fsck 1.43-WIP (20-Jun-2013)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 12, end of extent exceeds allowed value
(logical block 301, physical block 1464, len 211)
Clear? no
Inode 12, i_blocks is 4112, should be 2424. Fix? no
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
Block bitmap differences: -(1464--1674)
Fix? no
The file looks like this:
debugfs: ex f1
Level Entries Logical Physical Length Flags
0/ 1 1/ 1 0 - 300 1675 301
^^^ length 301
^^ last logical block at 300
1/ 1 1/ 8 0 - 0 1163 - 1163 1
1/ 1 2/ 8 1 - 99 1164 - 1262 99 Uninit
1/ 1 3/ 8 100 - 100 1263 - 1263 1
1/ 1 4/ 8 101 - 199 1264 - 1362 99 Uninit
1/ 1 5/ 8 200 - 200 1363 - 1363 1
1/ 1 6/ 8 201 - 299 1364 - 1462 99 Uninit
1/ 1 7/ 8 300 - 300 1463 - 1463 1
1/ 1 8/ 8 301 - 511 1464 - 1674 211 Uninit
^^ extent past EOF extends beyond parent
Ted thought that was OK, I guess, but that seems very strange to me.
Why would we NOT update the length/range of the parent block?
Where EOF/i_size happens to land should be orthogonal to how
the extent tree is described, I would expect.
I asked in:
Subject: fallocated blocks past EOF & past parent node range OK?
but there's been no discussion so far. I'd like to understand
why it's felt that the tree above is not considered to be corrupt.
Thanks,
-Eric
>>
>> - Ted
>>
>> commit d3f32c2db8f11c87aa7939d78e7eb4c373f7034f
>> Author: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
>> Date: Thu Jun 6 20:04:33 2013 -0400
>>
>> e2fsck: detect invalid extents at the end of an extent-block
>>
>> e2fsck does not detect extents which are outside their location in the
>> extent tree. This can result in a bad extent at the end of an extent-block
>> not being detected.
>>
>> From a part of a dump_extents output:
>>
>> 1/ 2 37/ 68 143960 - 146679 123826181 2720
>> 2/ 2 1/ 2 143960 - 146679 123785816 - 123788535 2720
>> 2/ 2 2/ 2 146680 - 147583 123788536 - 123789439 904 Uninit <-bad extent
>> 1/ 2 38/ 68 146680 - 149391 123826182 2712
>> 2/ 2 1/ 2 146680 - 147583 18486 - 19389 904
>> 2/ 2 2/ 2 147584 - 149391 123789440 - 123791247 1808
>>
>> e2fsck does not detect this bad extent which both overlaps another, valid
>> extent, and is invalid by being beyond the end of the extent above it in
>> the tree.
>>
>> This patch modifies e2fsck to detect this invalid extent and remove it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
>>
>> diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
>> index de00638..af9afe3 100644
>> --- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
>> +++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
>> @@ -1760,11 +1760,11 @@ void e2fsck_clear_inode(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_ino_t ino,
>>
>> static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
>> struct process_block_struct *pb,
>> - blk64_t start_block,
>> + blk64_t start_block, blk64_t end_block,
>> ext2_extent_handle_t ehandle)
>> {
>> struct ext2fs_extent extent;
>> - blk64_t blk;
>> + blk64_t blk, last_lblk;
>> e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt;
>> unsigned int i;
>> int is_dir, is_leaf;
>> @@ -1780,6 +1780,7 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
>> while (!pctx->errcode && info.num_entries-- > 0) {
>> is_leaf = extent.e_flags & EXT2_EXTENT_FLAGS_LEAF;
>> is_dir = LINUX_S_ISDIR(pctx->inode->i_mode);
>> + last_lblk = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
>>
>> problem = 0;
>> if (extent.e_pblk == 0 ||
>> @@ -1788,6 +1789,8 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
>> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
>> else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
>> problem = PR_1_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXTENTS;
>> + else if (end_block && last_lblk > end_block)
>> + problem = PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS;
>> else if (is_leaf && extent.e_len == 0)
>> problem = PR_1_EXTENT_LENGTH_ZERO;
>> else if (is_leaf &&
>> @@ -1822,10 +1825,9 @@ report_problem:
>> }
>>
>> if (!is_leaf) {
>> - blk64_t lblk;
>> + blk64_t lblk = extent.e_lblk;
>>
>> blk = extent.e_pblk;
>> - lblk = extent.e_lblk;
>> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
>> EXT2_EXTENT_DOWN, &extent);
>> if (pctx->errcode) {
>> @@ -1847,7 +1849,8 @@ report_problem:
>> if (fix_problem(ctx, problem, pctx))
>> ext2fs_extent_fix_parents(ehandle);
>> }
>> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk, ehandle);
>> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, extent.e_lblk,
>> + last_lblk, ehandle);
>> if (pctx->errcode)
>> return;
>> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
>> @@ -1928,10 +1931,10 @@ report_problem:
>> if (is_dir && extent.e_len > 0)
>> pb->last_db_block = blockcnt - 1;
>> pb->previous_block = extent.e_pblk + extent.e_len - 1;
>> - start_block = pb->last_block = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
>> + start_block = pb->last_block = last_lblk;
>> if (is_leaf && !is_dir &&
>> !(extent.e_flags & EXT2_EXTENT_FLAGS_UNINIT))
>> - pb->last_init_lblock = extent.e_lblk + extent.e_len - 1;
>> + pb->last_init_lblock = last_lblk;
>> next:
>> pctx->errcode = ext2fs_extent_get(ehandle,
>> EXT2_EXTENT_NEXT_SIB,
>> @@ -1967,7 +1970,7 @@ static void check_blocks_extents(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
>> ctx->extent_depth_count[info.max_depth]++;
>> }
>>
>> - scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, ehandle);
>> + scan_extent_node(ctx, pctx, pb, 0, 0, ehandle);
>> if (pctx->errcode &&
>> fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EXTENT_ITERATE_FAILURE, pctx)) {
>> pb->num_blocks = 0;
>> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
>> index 05ef626..6d03765 100644
>> --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
>> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
>> @@ -954,6 +954,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
>> "Logical start %b does not match logical start %c at next level. "),
>> PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
>>
>> + /* Extent end is out of bounds for the tree */
>> + { PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS,
>> + N_("@i %i, end of extent exceeds allowed value\n\t(logical @b %c, physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
>> + PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
>> +
>> +
>> /* Pass 1b errors */
>>
>> /* Pass 1B: Rescan for duplicate/bad blocks */
>> diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.h b/e2fsck/problem.h
>> index aed524d..b578678 100644
>> --- a/e2fsck/problem.h
>> +++ b/e2fsck/problem.h
>> @@ -561,6 +561,7 @@ struct problem_context {
>> /* Index start doesn't match start of next extent down */
>> #define PR_1_EXTENT_INDEX_START_INVALID 0x01006D
>>
>> +#define PR_1_EXTENT_END_OUT_OF_BOUNDS 0x01006E
>> /*
>> * Pass 1b errors
>> */
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>