On 18.11.19 г. 7:56 ч., damenly.su@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@xxxxxxx>
>
> while excluding super stripes from one block group, the logical bytenr
> should not be excluded if the block group's start + length equals the
> bytenr since the bytenr is not belong to the block group.
>
> This is insipred by same bugous code of btrfs-progs.
> The fuzz image is rejected to be mounted by tree-checker, but not
> bad to enhance the check in practice.
>
> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <Damenly_Su@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> index 1e521db3ef56..54f970f459f5 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> @@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ static int exclude_super_stripes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache)
> while (nr--) {
> u64 start, len;
>
> - if (logical[nr] > cache->start + cache->length)
> + if (logical[nr] >= cache->start + cache->length)
> continue;
>
> if (logical[nr] + stripe_len <= cache->start)
>
Is this check necessary at all, since btrfs_rmap_block already contains
a check which ensures the physical address passed is withing the range
of the given chunk, which in turn means all logical addresses derived in
btrfs_rmap_block with:
bytenr = chunk_start + stripe_nr * rmap_len;
will be within this block group?
