xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/7] libxfs: directory node splitting does not have an extra

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] libxfs: directory node splitting does not have an extra block
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 09:20:57 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1454627108-19036-4-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1454627108-19036-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1454627108-19036-4-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:05:04AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> xfs_da3_split() has to handle all three versions of the
> directory/attribute btree structure. The attr tree is v1, the dir
> tre is v2 or v3. The main difference between the v1 and v2/3 trees
> is the way tree nodes are split - in the v1 tree we can require a
> double split to occur because the object to be inserted may be
> larger than the space made by splitting a leaf. In this case we need
> to do a double split - one to split the full leaf, then another to
> allocate an empty leaf block in the correct location for the new
> entry.  This does not happen with dir (v2/v3) formats as the objects
> being inserted are always guaranteed to fit into the new space in
> the split blocks.
> 
> Indeed, for directories they *may* be an extra block on this buffer
> pointer. However, it's guaranteed not to be a leaf block (i.e. a
> directory data block) - the directory code only ever places hash
> index or free space blocks in this pointer (as a cursor of
> sorts), and so to use it as a directory data block will immediately
> corrupt the directory.
> 
> The problem is that the code assumes that there may be extra blocks
> that we need to link into the tree once we've split the root, but
> this is not true for either dir or attr trees, because the extra
> attr block is always consumed by the last node split before we split
> the root. Hence the linking in an extra block is always wrong at the
> root split level, and this manifests itself in repair as a directory
> corruption in a repaired directory, leaving the directory rebuild
> incomplete.
> 
> This is a dir v2 zero-day bug - it was in the initial dir v2 commit
> that was made back in February 1998.
> 
> Fix this by ensuring the linking of the blocks after the root split
> never tries to make use of the extra blocks that may be held in the
> cursor. They are held there for other purposes and should never be
> touched by the root splitting code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>

>  libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c | 59 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c b/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c
> index bf5fe21..25072c7 100644
> --- a/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c
> +++ b/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c
> @@ -351,7 +351,6 @@ xfs_da3_split(
>       struct xfs_da_state_blk *newblk;
>       struct xfs_da_state_blk *addblk;
>       struct xfs_da_intnode   *node;
> -     struct xfs_buf          *bp;
>       int                     max;
>       int                     action = 0;
>       int                     error;
> @@ -392,7 +391,9 @@ xfs_da3_split(
>                               break;
>                       }
>                       /*
> -                      * Entry wouldn't fit, split the leaf again.
> +                      * Entry wouldn't fit, split the leaf again. The new
> +                      * extrablk will be consumed by xfs_da3_node_split if
> +                      * the node is split.
>                        */
>                       state->extravalid = 1;
>                       if (state->inleaf) {
> @@ -441,6 +442,14 @@ xfs_da3_split(
>               return 0;
>  
>       /*
> +      * xfs_da3_node_split() should have consumed any extra blocks we added
> +      * during a double leaf split in the attr fork. This is guaranteed as
> +      * we can't be here if the attr fork only has a single leaf block.
> +      */
> +     ASSERT(state->extravalid == 0 ||
> +            state->path.blk[max].magic == XFS_DIR2_LEAFN_MAGIC);
> +
> +     /*
>        * Split the root node.
>        */
>       ASSERT(state->path.active == 0);
> @@ -452,43 +461,33 @@ xfs_da3_split(
>       }
>  
>       /*
> -      * Update pointers to the node which used to be block 0 and
> -      * just got bumped because of the addition of a new root node.
> -      * There might be three blocks involved if a double split occurred,
> -      * and the original block 0 could be at any position in the list.
> +      * Update pointers to the node which used to be block 0 and just got
> +      * bumped because of the addition of a new root node.  Note that the
> +      * original block 0 could be at any position in the list of blocks in
> +      * the tree.
>        *
> -      * Note: the magic numbers and sibling pointers are in the same
> -      * physical place for both v2 and v3 headers (by design). Hence it
> -      * doesn't matter which version of the xfs_da_intnode structure we use
> -      * here as the result will be the same using either structure.
> +      * Note: the magic numbers and sibling pointers are in the same physical
> +      * place for both v2 and v3 headers (by design). Hence it doesn't matter
> +      * which version of the xfs_da_intnode structure we use here as the
> +      * result will be the same using either structure.
>        */
>       node = oldblk->bp->b_addr;
>       if (node->hdr.info.forw) {
> -             if (be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.forw) == addblk->blkno) {
> -                     bp = addblk->bp;
> -             } else {
> -                     ASSERT(state->extravalid);
> -                     bp = state->extrablk.bp;
> -             }
> -             node = bp->b_addr;
> +             ASSERT(be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.forw) == addblk->blkno);
> +             node = addblk->bp->b_addr;
>               node->hdr.info.back = cpu_to_be32(oldblk->blkno);
> -             xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, bp,
> -                 XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(node, &node->hdr.info,
> -                 sizeof(node->hdr.info)));
> +             xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, addblk->bp,
> +                               XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(node, &node->hdr.info,
> +                               sizeof(node->hdr.info)));
>       }
>       node = oldblk->bp->b_addr;
>       if (node->hdr.info.back) {
> -             if (be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.back) == addblk->blkno) {
> -                     bp = addblk->bp;
> -             } else {
> -                     ASSERT(state->extravalid);
> -                     bp = state->extrablk.bp;
> -             }
> -             node = bp->b_addr;
> +             ASSERT(be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.back) == addblk->blkno);
> +             node = addblk->bp->b_addr;
>               node->hdr.info.forw = cpu_to_be32(oldblk->blkno);
> -             xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, bp,
> -                 XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(node, &node->hdr.info,
> -                 sizeof(node->hdr.info)));
> +             xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, addblk->bp,
> +                               XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(node, &node->hdr.info,
> +                               sizeof(node->hdr.info)));
>       }
>       addblk->bp = NULL;
>       return 0;
> -- 
> 2.5.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>