On 19.01.2018 12:03, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年01月19日 17:40, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 19.01.2018 09:25, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> btrfs_match_dir_item_name() will check if its filetype is valid before >>> doing search, this makes btrfs-progs unable to locate and remove invalid >>> dir_index for btrfs_unlink().> >>> This function only affects btrfs_link() and btrfs_unlink() in upper >>> layer, and normal check can find invalid filetype by itself. >> >> There is no function btrfs_link in btrfs-progs, there is, however, >> btrfs_add_link did you mean that function? > > Yep, sorry for the wrong name. > >> However, it doesn't seem to >> use verify_dir_item hence the check you are removing. I think this part >> of the commit log should be more precise. Also it's not really clear >> what you mean by "normal check" in this sentence. > > I skipped several function calls. > > btrfs_add_link() > |- check_dir_conflict > |- btrfs_lookup_dir_index() / btrfs_lookup_dir_item() > |- btrfs_match_dir_item_name() > |- verify_dir_item() > > And for btrfs_add_link() without checking invalid filetype, we can avoid > case like inserting duplicated DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX to avoid further > screwing up things.
Right, since if verify_dir_item fails we just return NULL as opposed to an error from btrfs_match_dir_item_name. <offtopic> Hm, so is it really possible to get a result for (key DIR_ITEM offset) and have btrfs_match_dir_item_name fail for that result? What I'm getting is that if btrfs_Search_slot returns 0 for such a query irrespective of whether the string name matches or not we should return some error code other than NULL ? </offtopic> > > For btrfs_unlink() it will be different story, as btrfs_unlink() can > locate the conflicting but invalid DIR_ITEM/DIR_INDEX and remove it, > allow us to fix the problem. > > And by "normal check" I mean btrfs check. > > I'll add the call trace to it. > >>> >>> So remove the filetype check is completely safe in this case, and will >>> enhance btrfs_unlink() to remove invalid dir_index/dir_item for repair. >> >> So the problem is that since btrfs_unlink calls verify_item and the >> latter has the filetype check in case of wrong filetype (corruption) >> verify_dir_item fails, hence we cannot perform the unlink? If my >> understanding is correct how about something like: >> >> >> If we have a corrupted dir item and enough information to repair it we >> need to first delete the old/corrupted version and then insert a new >> one. >> However, btrfs_unlink calls btrfs_match_dir_item_name to locate the >> offending dir item for deletion. The latter, in turn, uses >> verify_dir_item which checks if the value for DIR item's type is sane. >> In case of a corrupted type value then verify_dir_item will fail which >> in turn will prevent btrfs_unlink from deleting the offending item. > > Your understanding is completely right, and much shorter than my planned > explanation. > > I'll take it with extra call trace. > > Thanks, > Qu > >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> dir-item.c | 6 ------ >>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/dir-item.c b/dir-item.c >>> index 462546c0eaf4..e0a0ab4d7a5d 100644 >>> --- a/dir-item.c >>> +++ b/dir-item.c >>> @@ -294,12 +294,6 @@ static int verify_dir_item(struct btrfs_root *root, >>> u16 namelen = BTRFS_NAME_LEN; >>> u8 type = btrfs_dir_type(leaf, dir_item); >>> >>> - if (type >= BTRFS_FT_MAX) { >>> - fprintf(stderr, "invalid dir item type: %d\n", >>> - (int)type); >>> - return 1; >>> - } >>> - >>> if (type == BTRFS_FT_XATTR) >>> namelen = XATTR_NAME_MAX; >>> >>> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >> the body of a message to [email protected] >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
