If we grab a block group, for example in btrfs_trim_fs(), we will be holding
a reference on it but the block group can be removed after we got it (via
btrfs_remove_block_group), which means it will no longer be part of the
rbtree.
However, btrfs_remove_block_group() was only calling rb_erase() which leaves
the block group's rb_node left and right child pointers with the same content
they had before calling rb_erase. This was dangerous because a call to
next_block_group() would access the node's left and right child pointers (via
rb_next), which can be no longer valid.
Fix this by clearing a block group's node after removing it from the tree,
and have next_block_group() do a tree search to get the next block group
instead of using rb_next() if our block group was removed.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
(cherry picked from commit
292cbd51ecf85d73195a3e3193937fa770f6ea71)
struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache)
{
struct rb_node *node;
+
spin_lock(&root->fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
+
+ /* If our block group was removed, we need a full search. */
+ if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&cache->cache_node)) {
+ const u64 next_bytenr = cache->key.objectid + cache->key.offset;
+
+ spin_unlock(&root->fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
+ btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
+ cache = btrfs_lookup_first_block_group(root->fs_info,
+ next_bytenr);
+ return cache;
+ }
node = rb_next(&cache->cache_node);
btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
if (node) {
spin_lock(&root->fs_info->block_group_cache_lock);
rb_erase(&block_group->cache_node,
&root->fs_info->block_group_cache_tree);
+ RB_CLEAR_NODE(&block_group->cache_node);
if (root->fs_info->first_logical_byte == block_group->key.objectid)
root->fs_info->first_logical_byte = (u64)-1;