Received: by 2002:a25:868d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z13csp1965801ybk; Thu, 21 May 2020 21:19:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwnWINvoG7j14/R4HUzJQIAnP01RjIt2IWx/ulKHvCmYF+5h2ZsN2aBoCgXCTifmJ/ADgVg X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:217b:: with SMTP id rl27mr6721691ejb.291.1590121187802; Thu, 21 May 2020 21:19:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1590121187; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=lLont3Mh00lKrTKsyI+PSmKXYMytS235Nzeo4ysavZbcpXjRYOVwXCM0ZJmxCFuO5L m70h5G674mYy3cdRshctqyHrv+DCtgG79MQqiY0AcKyglyhXlGiVk02yUw5XTU9qExou qo+8NT8LZXH/j4lhrCS9s7Sx2Vcc2r8RgCl0GU/y0ebd7mnBRBJpNlM792588eAU2WMN CV78PTxTGMiV03e8ZxGsYDRJWIHaXH7TkllADRCXBkatmo+nfCJJwP6RLesYBI1sgsmT HkQ4WFfKaIwQvvmDPZB25TaywY0UHDC5MNvGuPc6wHWAmR/jDzfryvXaIj9QxLwfCqso Xzow== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from; bh=ZnzS98/6ed0edYiVbVzleVP1Ji848qmUa002OQCAhwU=; b=tG241hYnyUg6Krb5/MbZ2aucitEpcBK/Ns197JDXOicy11LJR1eqWVovYlJZpzG8Mc yxX8wEG5XTa5W8vwJcXnP1UzroTgiUwzBpCal4S7KgNTWSKCkLS603N0Y6Cib6yROAfy /d+7SSMO603OS5PYfia5AueQXW53nAjWEqU1EIYMnSdxceRRoGbwWQXgZ1hE66Zj97JS PlR39xk4yXufKPRPNlsINs87WsasSHcdTKZBFu6wXSf4PKrNUcxUNPwvoO5KFu+KCk36 lSltXFQ3XAbCUzR/LAYUjNKr3ca96ZmzYWIgfxVJYoVfsF/8vvZ2MLkf3z5Tv/FfyvU5 o7Cw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f24si4552284eja.255.2020.05.21.21.19.23; Thu, 21 May 2020 21:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726338AbgEVES5 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 22 May 2020 00:18:57 -0400 Received: from out4436.biz.mail.alibaba.com ([47.88.44.36]:39282 "EHLO out4436.biz.mail.alibaba.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725921AbgEVES4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 00:18:56 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R291e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e01358;MF=jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=4;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0TzFAC1R_1590121124; Received: from localhost(mailfrom:jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0TzFAC1R_1590121124) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Fri, 22 May 2020 12:18:44 +0800 From: Jeffle Xu To: tytso@mit.edu, enwlinux@gmail.com Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com Subject: [PATCH] ext4: fix partial cluster initialization when splitting extent Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:18:44 +0800 Message-Id: <1590121124-37096-1-git-send-email-jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Fix the bug when calculating the physical block number of the first block in the split extent. This bug will cause xfstests shared/298 failure on ext4 with bigalloc enabled occasionally. Ext4 error messages indicate that previously freed blocks are being freed again, and the following fsck will fail due to the inconsistency of block bitmap and bg descriptor. The following is an example case: 1. First, Initialize a ext4 filesystem with cluster size '16K', block size '4K', in which case, one cluster contains four blocks. 2. Create one file (e.g., xxx.img) on this ext4 filesystem. Now the extent tree of this file is like: ... 36864:[0]4:220160 36868:[0]14332:145408 51200:[0]2:231424 ... 3. Then execute PUNCH_HOLE fallocate on this file. The hole range is like: .. ext4_ext_remove_space: dev 254,16 ino 12 since 49506 end 49506 depth 1 ext4_ext_remove_space: dev 254,16 ino 12 since 49544 end 49546 depth 1 ext4_ext_remove_space: dev 254,16 ino 12 since 49605 end 49607 depth 1 ... 4. Then the extent tree of this file after punching is like ... 49507:[0]37:158047 49547:[0]58:158087 ... 5. Detailed procedure of punching hole [49544, 49546] 5.1. The block address space: ``` lblk ~49505 49506 49507~49543 49544~49546 49547~ ---------+------+-------------+----------------+-------- extent | hole | extent | hole | extent ---------+------+-------------+----------------+-------- pblk ~158045 158046 158047~158083 158084~158086 158087~ ``` 5.2. The detailed layout of cluster 39521: ``` cluster 39521 <-------------------------------> hole extent <----------------------><-------- lblk 49544 49545 49546 49547 +-------+-------+-------+-------+ | | | | | +-------+-------+-------+-------+ pblk 158084 1580845 158086 158087 ``` 5.3. The ftrace output when punching hole [49544, 49546]: - ext4_ext_remove_space (start 49544, end 49546) - ext4_ext_rm_leaf (start 49544, end 49546, last_extent [49507(158047), 40], partial [pclu 39522 lblk 0 state 2]) - ext4_remove_blocks (extent [49507(158047), 40], from 49544 to 49546, partial [pclu 39522 lblk 0 state 2] - ext4_free_blocks: (block 158084 count 4) - ext4_mballoc_free (extent 1/6753/1) 5.4. Ext4 error message in dmesg: EXT4-fs error (device vdb): mb_free_blocks:1457: group 1, block 158084:freeing already freed block (bit 6753); block bitmap corrupt. EXT4-fs error (device vdb): ext4_mb_generate_buddy:747: group 1, block bitmap and bg descriptor inconsistent: 19550 vs 19551 free clusters In this case, the whole cluster 39521 is freed mistakenly when freeing pblock 158084~158086 (i.e., the first three blocks of this cluster), although pblock 158087 (the last remaining block of this cluster) has not been freed yet. The root cause of this isuue is that, the pclu of the partial cluster is calculated mistakenly in ext4_ext_remove_space(). The correct partial_cluster.pclu (i.e., the cluster number of the first block in the next extent, that is, lblock 49597 (pblock 158086)) should be 39521 rather than 39522. Fixes: f4226d9ea400 ("ext4: fix partial cluster initialization") Signed-off-by: Jeffle Xu Reviewed-by: Eric Whitney Cc: stable@kernel.org # v3.19+ --- fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c index f2b577b..cb74496 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c @@ -2828,7 +2828,7 @@ int ext4_ext_remove_space(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t start, * in use to avoid freeing it when removing blocks. */ if (sbi->s_cluster_ratio > 1) { - pblk = ext4_ext_pblock(ex) + end - ee_block + 2; + pblk = ext4_ext_pblock(ex) + end - ee_block + 1; partial.pclu = EXT4_B2C(sbi, pblk); partial.state = nofree; } -- 1.8.3.1