For btrfs-progs test case 021-partially-dropped-snapshot-case, if the
first leaf is already dropped, btrfs check low-memory mode will report
false alert:
checking fs roots
checksum verify failed on 29917184 found E4E3BDB6 wanted 00000000
checksum verify failed on 29917184 found E4E3BDB6 wanted 00000000
checksum verify failed on 29917184 found E4E3BDB6 wanted 00000000
checksum verify failed on 29917184 found E4E3BDB6 wanted 00000000
This is caused by we are calling check_fs_first_inode() function,
unlike the rest part of check_fs_root_v2(), it doesn't have enough check
on dropping progress, and caused the false alert.
Fix it by checking dropping progress before searching slot.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
root->highest_inode is not accurate at the time of creating a lost+found
and it fails because the highest_inode+1 is already present. This could be
because of fixes after highest_inode is set. Instead, search
for the highest inode in the tree and use it for lost+found.
This makes root->highest_inode unnecessary and hence deleted.
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
For fs with tree reloc tree(under balancing), lowmem mode will report
false alert like:
ERROR: extent[62914560 4096] backref generation mismatch, wanted: <=9,
have: 13
This is because lowmem mode adds a more restrict check, to ensure
generation in fs tree won't be smaller than extent tree.
In fact such assumption is not right for tree reloc tree, so remove such
check.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Lowmem mode will report false alert if the fs has tree reloc tree like:
ERROR: shared extent[30011392 4096] lost its parent (parent: 30011392,
level: 1)
The problem is check_shared_block_backref() can't handle tree reloc
tree's self-pointing backref.
And still try to read out the tree block then seeking for the
referencer.
The correct method for it is to check if it's tree reloc root.
In that case, we should check found the ROOT_ITEM of tree reloc tree in
root tree.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Lowmem mode fsck will overflow its stack since it will do infinite
backref check for tree reloc root.
We should not check backref if it's pointing to itself for tree reloc
root.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
When using lowmem mode, btrfs check will report ASSERT for calling
btrfs_read_fs_root() on tree reloc tree.
Fix it by checking objectid and call btrfs_read_fs_root_no_cache() for
tree reloc tree.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The path that leaves ret unintialized goes through the second if block
and requires dback->found_ref to be 0. Quick search leads to several
places where it's set according to found items so we won't reach the for
loop with found_ref 0.
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
[ updated changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Simplifying the logic of fixing.
Calling fixup_extent_ref() after encountering every error causes
more error messages after the extent is fixed. In case of multiple errors,
this is confusing because the error message is displayed after the fix
message and it works on stale data. It is best to show all errors and
then fix the extents.
Set a variable and call fixup_extent_ref() if it is set. err is not used,
so cleared it.
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
We didn't check 'path' allocated in check_root_ref(), which can cause
NULL pointer dereference if the memory allocation failed.
Fix it by using stack memory, since the function should return error
bitmap not minus error code, we don't want memory allocation to be an
exception.
Resolves-Coverity-CID: 1372510
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Allocated 'path' in check_fs_first_inode() is not checked and for
btrfs_search_slot() error, it will leak 'path'.
Fix it.
Resolves-Coverity-CID: 1374098
Resolves-Coverity-CID: 1374099
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The leaf traversal function in lowmem mode will skip to the first inode
item of leaf and begin to check the inode.
That's designed to avoid checking overlapping part of a leaf.
But that will cause problem in fsck/010 test case, as in that case inode
item of the first inode(256) is missing.
So above traversal will check from inode 257 and found nothing wrong.
The fix is done in 2 part:
1) Manually check the first inode
To avoid case like fsck/010
2) Check inode if ino changes from the first ino of a leaf
To avoid missing inode_item problem.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The basic idea is simple. Assume a middle tree node A is shared and
its referencing fs/file tree root ids are 5, 258 and 260, then we
only check node A in the tree who has the smallest root id. That means
in this case, when checking root tree(5), we check inode A, for root
tree 258 and 260, we can just skip it.
Notice even with this patch, we still may visit a shared node or leaf
multiple times. This happens when a inode metadata occupies multiple
leaves.
leaf_A leaf_B
When checking inode item in leaf_A, assume inode[512] have file extents
in leaf_B, and leaf_B is shared. In the case, for inode[512], we must
visit leaf_B to have inode item checked. After finishing inode[512] check,
here we walk down tree root to leaf_B to check whether node or leaf
is shared, if some node or leaf is shared, we can just skip it and below
nodes or leaf's check.
I also fill a disk partition with linux source codes and create 3
snapshots in it. Before this patch, it averagely took 46s to finish one
btrfsck execution, with this patch, it averagely took 15s.
Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang <wangxg.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The function cmd_check() is called by the main function of btrfs.c, its
return value will be returned by exit(). Resulting in the loss of
significant bits in some cases, for example this value is greater than
0377. If use a bool value "err" to store all of the return value, this
will solve the problem.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_fs_roots_v2() for check fs_tree in
low_memory mode. It call check_fs_root_v2() to check fs_root, and call
check_root_ref() to check root_ref.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_root_ref() to check
root_ref/root_backref.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_fs_root_v2() to check fs root,
and call check_inode_item to check the items in the tree.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_inode_item() to check INODE_ITEM and
related ITEMs that have the same inode id.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_file_extent() to check file extent,
such as datasum, hole, size.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_dir_item() to check DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX,
and call find_inode_ref() to find the related INODE_REF/INODE_EXTREF.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function find_inode_ref() to find
INODE_REF/INODE_EXTREF for the given key, and check it with the
specified DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX match.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_inode_extref() to check INODE_EXTREF, and
call find_dir_item() to find the related DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function check_inode_ref() to check INODE_REF,
and call find_dir_item() to find the related DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Introduce a new function find_dir_item() to find DIR_ITEM for the given
key, and check it with the specified INODE_REF/INODE_EXTREF match.
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Also, the other progress messages go to stderr, so "checking extents"
probably should, as well.
Fixes: c7a1f66a20 ("btrfs-progs: check: switch some messages to common helpers")
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
The find_most_right_entry() tends to miss on the best entry if it is the
first one on the list and there are only two entries in the list. So,
we assign both prev and best to entry.
To do this, the selection process (rather the rejection) has to be
performed earlier to skip on broken==count.
Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
In a similar code, it's used for a message. Not used in this code since
the beggingin, safe to remove.
Resolves-coverity-id: 1364085
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Qu Wenruo
Goldwyn Rodrigues
David Sterba
Wang Xiaoguang
Lu Fengqi
Omar Sandoval
Goldwyn Rodrigues