The new test case would contain a file system image, with the following
file:
item 4 key (257 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 15883 itemsize 160
generation 7 transid 8 size 16384 nbytes 16384
block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0
sequence 258 flags 0x0(none)
atime 1714635006.328482575 (2024-05-02 17:00:06)
ctime 1714635013.394980640 (2024-05-02 17:00:13)
mtime 1714635013.394980640 (2024-05-02 17:00:13)
otime 1714635006.328482575 (2024-05-02 17:00:06)
item 5 key (257 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 15869 itemsize 14
index 2 namelen 4 name: file
item 6 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15816 itemsize 53
generation 7 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 13631488 nr 1048576
extent data offset 0 nr 16384 ram 16384
extent compression 0 (none)
Note the ram bytes, which should be 1048576.
Furthermore, the inode size is truncated to 16K (originally 1M), so that
offset + num_bytes would still be no larger than ram_bytes.
So the only error is the mismatch between ram_bytes and disk_num_bytes
for the non-compressed data extent.
The image is hand crafted for now, as btrfs-corrupt-block doesn't not yet
support corrupting the ram_bytes field.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Qu Wenruo