btrfs: fix race between ordered extent completion and fiemap

[ Upstream commit a1a4a9ca ]

For fiemap we recently stopped locking the target extent range for the
whole duration of the fiemap call, in order to avoid a deadlock in a
scenario where the fiemap buffer happens to be a memory mapped range of
the same file. This use case is very unlikely to be useful in practice but
it may be triggered by fuzz testing (syzbot, etc).

However by not locking the target extent range for the whole duration of
the fiemap call we can race with an ordered extent. This happens like
this:

1) The fiemap task finishes processing a file extent item that covers
   the file range [512K, 1M[, and that file extent item is the last item
   in the leaf currently being processed;

2) And ordered extent for the file range [768K, 2M[, in COW mode,
   completes (btrfs_finish_one_ordered()) and the file extent item
   covering the range [512K, 1M[ is trimmed to cover the range
   [512K, 768K[ and then a new file extent item for the range [768K, 2M[
   is inserted in the inode's subvolume tree;

3) The fiemap task calls fiemap_next_leaf_item(), which then calls
   btrfs_next_leaf() to find the next leaf / item. This finds that the
   the next key following the one we previously processed (its type is
   BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY and its offset is 512K), is the key corresponding
   to the new file extent item inserted by the ordered extent, which has
   a type of BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY and an offset of 768K;

4) Later the fiemap code ends up at emit_fiemap_extent() and triggers
   the warning:

      if (cache->offset + cache->len > offset) {
               WARN_ON(1);
               return -EINVAL;
      }

   Since we get 1M > 768K, because the previously emitted entry for the
   old extent covering the file range [512K, 1M[ ends at an offset that
   is greater than the new extent's start offset (768K). This makes fiemap
   fail with -EINVAL besides triggering the warning that produces a stack
   trace like the following:

     [1621.677651] ------------[ cut here ]------------
     [1621.677656] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 204366 at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2492 emit_fiemap_extent+0x84/0x90 [btrfs]
     [1621.677899] Modules linked in: btrfs blake2b_generic (...)
     [1621.677951] CPU: 1 PID: 204366 Comm: pool Not tainted 6.8.0-rc5-btrfs-next-151+ #1
     [1621.677954] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-0-gea1b7a073390-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
     [1621.677956] RIP: 0010:emit_fiemap_extent+0x84/0x90 [btrfs]
     [1621.678033] Code: 2b 4c 89 63 (...)
     [1621.678035] RSP: 0018:ffffab16089ffd20 EFLAGS: 00010206
     [1621.678037] RAX: 00000000004fa000 RBX: ffffab16089ffe08 RCX: 0000000000009000
     [1621.678039] RDX: 00000000004f9000 RSI: 00000000004f1000 RDI: ffffab16089ffe90
     [1621.678040] RBP: 00000000004f9000 R08: 0000000000001000 R09: 0000000000000000
     [1621.678041] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000001000 R12: 0000000041d78000
     [1621.678043] R13: 0000000000001000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff9434f0b17850
     [1621.678044] FS:  00007fa6e20006c0(0000) GS:ffff943bdfa40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
     [1621.678046] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
     [1621.678048] CR2: 00007fa6b0801000 CR3: 000000012d404002 CR4: 0000000000370ef0
     [1621.678053] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
     [1621.678055] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
     [1621.678056] Call Trace:
     [1621.678074]  <TASK>
     [1621.678076]  ? __warn+0x80/0x130
     [1621.678082]  ? emit_fiemap_extent+0x84/0x90 [btrfs]
     [1621.678159]  ? report_bug+0x1f4/0x200
     [1621.678164]  ? handle_bug+0x42/0x70
     [1621.678167]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x70
     [1621.678170]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
     [1621.678178]  ? emit_fiemap_extent+0x84/0x90 [btrfs]
     [1621.678253]  extent_fiemap+0x766/0xa30 [btrfs]
     [1621.678339]  btrfs_fiemap+0x45/0x80 [btrfs]
     [1621.678420]  do_vfs_ioctl+0x1e4/0x870
     [1621.678431]  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x6a/0xc0
     [1621.678434]  do_syscall_64+0x52/0x120
     [1621.678445]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x76

There's also another case where before calling btrfs_next_leaf() we are
processing a hole or a prealloc extent and we had several delalloc ranges
within that hole or prealloc extent. In that case if the ordered extents
complete before we find the next key, we may end up finding an extent item
with an offset smaller than (or equals to) the offset in cache->offset.

So fix this by changing emit_fiemap_extent() to address these three
scenarios like this:

1) For the first case, steps listed above, adjust the length of the
   previously cached extent so that it does not overlap with the current
   extent, emit the previous one and cache the current file extent item;

2) For the second case where he had a hole or prealloc extent with
   multiple delalloc ranges inside the hole or prealloc extent's range,
   and the current file extent item has an offset that matches the offset
   in the fiemap cache, just discard what we have in the fiemap cache and
   assign the current file extent item to the cache, since it's more up
   to date;

3) For the third case where he had a hole or prealloc extent with
   multiple delalloc ranges inside the hole or prealloc extent's range
   and the offset of the file extent item we just found is smaller than
   what we have in the cache, just skip the current file extent item
   if its range end at or behind the cached extent's end, because we may
   have emitted (to the fiemap user space buffer) delalloc ranges that
   overlap with the current file extent item's range. If the file extent
   item's range goes beyond the end offset of the cached extent, just
   emit the cached extent and cache a subrange of the file extent item,
   that goes from the end offset of the cached extent to the end offset
   of the file extent item.

Dealing with those cases in those ways makes everything consistent by
reflecting the current state of file extent items in the btree and
without emitting extents that have overlapping ranges (which would be
confusing and violating expectations).

This issue could be triggered often with test case generic/561, and was
also hit and reported by Wang Yugui.

Reported-by: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@e16-tech.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20240223104619.701F.409509F4@e16-tech.com/


Fixes: b0ad381f ("btrfs: fix deadlock with fiemap and extent locking")
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>