From: Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com
stable inclusion from stable-5.10.75 commit 52924879ed450b5c0731c7abd670f2ac57dde93d bugzilla: 182987 https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I4I3MP
Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=...
--------------------------------
commit d175209be04d7d263fa1a54cde7608c706c9d0d7 upstream.
I hit a stuck relocation on btrfs/061 during my overnight testing. This turned out to be because we had left over extent entries in our extent root for a data reloc inode that no longer existed. This happened because in btrfs_drop_extents() we only update refs if we have SHAREABLE set or we are the tree_root. This regression was introduced by aeb935a45581 ("btrfs: don't set SHAREABLE flag for data reloc tree") where we stopped setting SHAREABLE for the data reloc tree.
The problem here is we actually do want to update extent references for data extents in the data reloc tree, in fact we only don't want to update extent references if the file extents are in the log tree. Update this check to only skip updating references in the case of the log tree.
This is relatively rare, because you have to be running scrub at the same time, which is what btrfs/061 does. The data reloc inode has its extents pre-allocated, and then we copy the extent into the pre-allocated chunks. We theoretically should never be calling btrfs_drop_extents() on a data reloc inode. The exception of course is with scrub, if our pre-allocated extent falls inside of the block group we are scrubbing, then the block group will be marked read only and we will be forced to cow that extent. This means we will call btrfs_drop_extents() on that range when we COW that file extent.
This isn't really problematic if we do this, the data reloc inode requires that our extent lengths match exactly with the extent we are copying, thankfully we validate the extent is correct with get_new_location(), so if we happen to COW only part of the extent we won't link it in when we do the relocation, so we are safe from any other shenanigans that arise because of this interaction with scrub.
Fixes: aeb935a45581 ("btrfs: don't set SHAREABLE flag for data reloc tree") CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.8+ Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo wqu@suse.com Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com Signed-off-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Signed-off-by: Chen Jun chenjun102@huawei.com Acked-by: Weilong Chen chenweilong@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Chen Jun chenjun102@huawei.com --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index 6ab91661cd26..711483d15c4c 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -710,8 +710,7 @@ int __btrfs_drop_extents(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, if (start >= inode->disk_i_size && !replace_extent) modify_tree = 0;
- update_refs = (test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE, &root->state) || - root == fs_info->tree_root); + update_refs = (root->root_key.objectid != BTRFS_TREE_LOG_OBJECTID); while (1) { recow = 0; ret = btrfs_lookup_file_extent(trans, root, path, ino,