On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > > > On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > > > > While updating btree, we try to push items between sibling > > > > nodes/leaves in order to keep height as low as possible. > > > > But we don't memset the original places with zero when > > > > pushing items so that we could end up leaving stale content > > > > in nodes/leaves. One may read the above stale content by > > > > increasing btree blocks' @nritems. > > > > > > > > > > Ok this sounds really bad. Is this as bad as I think it sounds? We > > > should probably fix this like right now right? > > > > He's bumping @nritems with a fuzzer I think? As in this happens when someone > > forces it (or via some other bug) but not in normal operations. > > > > Oh ok if this happens with a fuzzer than this is fine, but I'd rather do > -EIO so we know this is something bad with the fs. -EIO may be more appropriate to be given while reading btree blocks and checking their validation? > And change the changelog > to make it explicit that this is the result of fs corruption, not normal > operation. Then you can add > > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx> OK, make sense. Thanks, -liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
