Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix rw device counting in __btrfs_free_extra_devids
From: David Sterba <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-21 13:40:26
Also in:
linux-kernel-mentees, lkml
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:11:43PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
On 15/7/21 7:55 pm, Nikolay Borisov wrote:quoted
On 15.07.21 г. 13:34, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:quoted
Syzbot reports a warning in close_fs_devices that happens because fs_devices->rw_devices is not 0 after calling btrfs_close_one_device on each device. This happens when a writeable device is removed in __btrfs_free_extra_devids, but the rw device count is not decremented accordingly. So when close_fs_devices is called, the removed device is still counted and we get an off by 1 error. Here is one call trace that was observed: btrfs_mount_root(): btrfs_scan_one_device(): device_list_add(); <---------------- device added btrfs_open_devices(): open_fs_devices(): btrfs_open_one_device(); <-------- rw device count ++ btrfs_fill_super(): open_ctree(): btrfs_free_extra_devids(): __btrfs_free_extra_devids(); <--- device removed fail_tree_roots: btrfs_close_devices(): close_fs_devices(); <------- rw device count off by 1 Fixes: cf89af146b7e ("btrfs: dev-replace: fail mount if we don't have replace item with target device") Reported-by: syzbot+a70e2ad0879f160b9217@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Tested-by: syzbot+a70e2ad0879f160b9217@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <redacted>Is there a reliable reproducer from syzbot? Can this be turned into an xfstest?Syzbot has some reliable reproducers here: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=113d9a01cbe0af3e291633ba7a7a3e983b86c3c0 Seems like it constructs two images in-memory then mounts them. I'm not sure if that's amenable to be converted into an xfstest?
It would need to be an image from the time the warning is reproduced, I'm not sure how much timing is also important. But iirc adding raw test images to fstests was not welcome, so it would have to be a reproducer and given that the syzkaller source is not human readable I'm not sure it would be welcome either. Maybe there's some middle ground when the image is created by mkfs and filled with the data and then the mount loop is started from shell. But that means to untangle the C reproducer.