Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ext4: fix incorrect calculate 'reserved' in '__es_remove_extent' when enable bigalloc feature

[yebin (H)]

On 2022/12/2 6:21, Eric Whitney wrote:
> * Ye Bin <yebin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > From: Ye Bin <yebin10@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Syzbot report issue as follows:
> > EXT4-fs error (device loop0): ext4_validate_block_bitmap:398: comm rep: bg 0: block 5: invalid block bitmap
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 18 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 32 with error 28
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
> >
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): Total free blocks count 0
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): Free/Dirty block details
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): free_blocks=0
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): dirty_blocks=32
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): Block reservation details
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): i_reserved_data_blocks=2
> > EXT4-fs (loop0): Inode 18 (00000000845cd634): i_reserved_data_blocks (1) not cleared!
> >
> > Above issue happens as follows:
> > Assume:
> > sbi->s_cluster_ratio = 16
> > Step1: Insert delay block [0, 31] -> ei->i_reserved_data_blocks=2
> > Step2:
> > ext4_writepages
> >    mpage_map_and_submit_extent -> return failed
> >    mpage_release_unused_pages -> to release [0, 30]
> >      ext4_es_remove_extent -> remove lblk=0 end=30
> >        __es_remove_extent -> len1=0 len2=31-30=1
> >   __es_remove_extent:
> >   ...
> >   if (len2 > 0) {
> >    ...
> > 	  if (len1 > 0) {
> > 		  ...
> > 	  } else {
> > 		es->es_lblk = end + 1;
> > 		es->es_len = len2;
> > 		...
> > 	  }
> >    	if (count_reserved)
> > 		count_rsvd(inode, lblk, orig_es.es_len - len1 - len2, &orig_es, &rc);
> > 	goto out; -> will return but didn't calculate 'reserved'
> >   ...
> > Step3: ext4_destroy_inode -> trigger "i_reserved_data_blocks (1) not cleared!"
> >
> > To solve above issue if 'len2>0' call 'get_rsvd()' before goto out.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+05a0f0ccab4a25626e38@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   fs/ext4/extents_status.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
> > index cd0a861853e3..4684eaea9471 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
> > @@ -1371,7 +1371,7 @@ static int __es_remove_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
> >   		if (count_reserved)
> >   			count_rsvd(inode, lblk, orig_es.es_len - len1 - len2,
> >   				   &orig_es, &rc);
> > -		goto out;
> > +		goto count;
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	if (len1 > 0) {
> > @@ -1413,6 +1413,7 @@ static int __es_remove_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
> >   		}
> >   	}
> >   
> > +count:
> >   	if (count_reserved)
> >   		*reserved = get_rsvd(inode, end, es, &rc);
> >   out:
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> I'm unable to find the sysbot report for this patch, so I can't verify that
> this fix works.  The more serious problem would be whatever is causing
As I reproduce "[syzbot] memory leak in __insert_pending" issue , after 
merge my previous
patch 1b8f787ef547 "ext4: fix warning in 'ext4_da_release_space'", I 
found there is no memleak
but report  "i_reserved_data_blocks not cleared".
You can use C  reproducer on linux-next to reproduce this issue.

 C reproducer:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=13a9300a880000

> the invalid block bitmap and delayed allocation failure messages before the
> i_reserved_data_blocks message.  Perhaps that's simply what syzkaller set
> up, but it's not clear from this posting.  Have you looked for the cause
> of those first two messages?
>
> However, by inspection this patch should fix an obvious bug causing that last
> message, introduced by 8fcc3a580651 ("ext4: rework reserved cluster accounting
> when invalidating pages").  A Fixes tag should be added to the patch.  Also,
> the readability of the code should be improved by changing the label "count" to
> the more descriptive "out_get_reserved".
>
> With those two changes, feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Eric
> .