| Message ID | 20221203025941.2661302-4-yebin@huaweicloud.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix two issues about bigalloc feature | expand |
`* Ye Bin <yebin@huaweicloud.com>: > From: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com> > > Syzbot found the following issue: > BUG: memory leak > unreferenced object 0xffff8881bde17420 (size 32): > comm "rep", pid 2327, jiffies 4295381963 (age 32.265s) > hex dump (first 32 bytes): > 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > backtrace: > [<00000000ac6d38f8>] __insert_pending+0x13c/0x2d0 > [<00000000d717de3b>] ext4_es_insert_delayed_block+0x399/0x4e0 > [<000000004be03913>] ext4_da_map_blocks.constprop.0+0x739/0xfa0 > [<00000000885a832a>] ext4_da_get_block_prep+0x10c/0x440 > [<0000000029b7f8ef>] __block_write_begin_int+0x28d/0x860 > [<00000000e182ebc3>] ext4_da_write_inline_data_begin+0x2d1/0xf30 > [<00000000ced0c8a2>] ext4_da_write_begin+0x612/0x860 > [<000000008d5f27fa>] generic_perform_write+0x215/0x4d0 > [<00000000552c1cde>] ext4_buffered_write_iter+0x101/0x3b0 > [<0000000052177ae8>] do_iter_readv_writev+0x19f/0x340 > [<000000004b9de834>] do_iter_write+0x13b/0x650 > [<00000000e2401b9b>] iter_file_splice_write+0x5a5/0xab0 > [<0000000023aa5d90>] direct_splice_actor+0x103/0x1e0 > [<0000000089e00fc1>] splice_direct_to_actor+0x2c9/0x7b0 > [<000000004386851e>] do_splice_direct+0x159/0x280 > [<00000000b567e609>] do_sendfile+0x932/0x1200 > > Above issue fixed by 1b8f787ef547 "ext4: fix warning in 'ext4_da_release_space'" > in this scene. To make things better add check pending tree when evit inode. > According to Eric Whitney's suggestion, bigalloc + inline is still in development > so we just add test for this situation, there isn't need to add code to free > pending tree entry. > > Reported-by: syzbot+05a0f0ccab4a25626e38@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com> > --- > fs/ext4/super.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > index 41413338c05b..2e2fbc4a832c 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > @@ -1391,6 +1391,11 @@ static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode) > "Inode %lu (%p): i_reserved_data_blocks (%u) not cleared!", > inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode), > EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks); > + > + if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_pending_tree.root)) > + ext4_error(inode->i_sb, > + "Inode %lu (%p): i_pending_tree not empty!", > + inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode)); > } > It's always a good idea to run ./scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patches before submitting them. It's complaining that the lines in your commit description are too long (it wants a maximum of 75 characters per line, but Ted prefers a maximum of 72 for ext4 patches, IIRC). Also, it wants parentheses around the title of the patch mentioned in the commit message: ie: commit 1b8f787ef547 ("ext4: fix warning in 'ext4_da_release_space'") Also, typical ext4 practice is to align arguments to a function on following lines to the beginning of the first argument, as can be seen earlier in ext4_destroy_inode. Indenting as you've done here passes checkpatch, but it's different from most ext4 code (which also passes checkpatch). Otherwise, it looks okay. Eric > static void init_once(void *foo) > -- > 2.31.1 >
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c index 41413338c05b..2e2fbc4a832c 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/super.c +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c @@ -1391,6 +1391,11 @@ static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode) "Inode %lu (%p): i_reserved_data_blocks (%u) not cleared!", inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode), EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks); + + if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_pending_tree.root)) + ext4_error(inode->i_sb, + "Inode %lu (%p): i_pending_tree not empty!", + inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode)); } static void init_once(void *foo)