Skip to content
Commit f0986318 authored by Filipe Manana's avatar Filipe Manana Committed by David Sterba
Browse files

Btrfs: fix physical offset reported by fiemap for inline extents



Commit 9d311e11 ("Btrfs: fiemap: pass correct bytenr when
fm_extent_count is zero") introduced a regression where we no longer
report 0 as the physical offset for inline extents (and other extents
with a special block_start value). This is because it always sets the
variable used to report the physical offset ("disko") as em->block_start
plus some offset, and em->block_start has the value 18446744073709551614
((u64) -2) for inline extents.

This made the btrfs test 004 (from fstests) often fail, for example, for
a file with an inline extent we have the following items in the subvolume
tree:

    item 101 key (418 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 11029 itemsize 160
           generation 25 transid 38 size 1525 nbytes 1525
           block group 0 mode 100666 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0
           sequence 0 flags 0x2(none)
           atime 1529342058.461891730 (2018-06-18 18:14:18)
           ctime 1529342058.461891730 (2018-06-18 18:14:18)
           mtime 1529342058.461891730 (2018-06-18 18:14:18)
           otime 1529342055.869892885 (2018-06-18 18:14:15)
    item 102 key (418 INODE_REF 264) itemoff 11016 itemsize 13
           index 25 namelen 3 name: fc7
    item 103 key (418 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 9470 itemsize 1546
           generation 38 type 0 (inline)
           inline extent data size 1525 ram_bytes 1525 compression 0 (none)

Then when test 004 invoked fiemap against the file it got a non-zero
physical offset:

 $ filefrag -v /mnt/p0/d4/d7/fc7
 Filesystem type is: 9123683e
 File size of /mnt/p0/d4/d7/fc7 is 1525 (1 block of 4096 bytes)
  ext:     logical_offset:        physical_offset: length:   expected: flags:
    0:        0..    4095: 18446744073709551614..      4093:   4096:             last,not_aligned,inline,eof
 /mnt/p0/d4/d7/fc7: 1 extent found

This resulted in the test failing like this:

btrfs/004 49s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch (see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/004.out.bad)
    --- tests/btrfs/004.out	2016-08-23 10:17:35.027012095 +0100
    +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/004.out.bad	2018-06-18 18:15:02.385872155 +0100
    @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
     QA output created by 004
     *** test backref walking
    -*** done
    +./tests/btrfs/004: line 227: [: 7.55578637259143e+22: integer expression expected
    +ERROR: 7.55578637259143e+22 is not a valid numeric value.
    +unexpected output from
    +	/home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal logical-resolve -s 65536 -P 7.55578637259143e+22 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1
    ...
    (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/004.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
Ran: btrfs/004

The large number in scientific notation reported as an invalid numeric
value is the result from the filter passed to perl which multiplies the
physical offset by the block size reported by fiemap.

So fix this by ensuring the physical offset is always set to 0 when we
are processing an extent with a special block_start value.

Fixes: 9d311e11 ("Btrfs: fiemap: pass correct bytenr when fm_extent_count is zero")
Signed-off-by: default avatarFilipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
parent ac0b4145
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment