hfsplus: fix B-tree corruption after insertion at position 0
PATCH 1/1 hfsplus: fix B-tree corruption after insertion at position 0
Fix B-tree corruption when a new record is inserted at position 0 in the node in hfs_brec_insert(). In this case a hfs_brec_update_parent() is called to update the parent index node (if exists) and it is passed hfs_find_data with a search_key containing a newly inserted key instead of the key to be updated. This results in an inconsistent index node. The bug reproduces on my machine after an extents overflow record for the catalog file (CNID=4) is inserted into the extents overflow B-tree. Because of a low (reserved) value of CNID=4, it has to become the first record in the first leaf node.
The resulting first leaf node is correct:
----------------------------------------------------
| key0.CNID=4 | key1.CNID=123 | key2.CNID=456, ... |
----------------------------------------------------
But the parent index key0 still contains the previous key CNID=123:
-----------------------
| key0.CNID=123 | ... |
-----------------------
A change in hfs_brec_insert() makes hfs_brec_update_parent() work correctly by preventing it from getting fd->record=-1 value from __hfs_brec_find().
Along the way, I removed duplicate code with unification of the if condition. The resulting code is equivalent to the original code because node is never 0.
Also hfs_brec_update_parent() will now return an error after getting a negative fd->record value. However, the return value of hfs_brec_update_parent() is not checked anywhere in the file and I'm leaving it unchanged by this patch. brec.c lacks error checking after some other calls too, but this issue is of less importance than the one being fixed by this patch.
--- fs/hfsplus/brec.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
fs/hfsplus/brec.c +11 -9
@@ -131,13 +131,16 @@ skip:hfs_bnode_write (node, entry, data_off + key_len, entry_len);hfs_bnode_dump (node); -if (new_node) { -/* update parent key if we inserted a key -* at the start of the first node -*/ -if (!rec && new_node != node) -hfs_brec_update_parent (fd); +/* +* update parent key if we inserted a key +* at the start of the node and it is not the new node +*/ +if (!rec && new_node != node) { +hfs_bnode_read_key (node, fd->search_key, data_off + size); +hfs_brec_update_parent (fd); + } +if (new_node) {hfs_bnode_put (fd->bnode);if (!new_node->parent) {hfs_btree_inc_height (tree);
@@ -168,9 +171,6 @@ skip: goto again; } -if (!rec) -hfs_brec_update_parent (fd); -return 0 ; }
@@ -370,6 +370,8 @@ again:if (IS_ERR (parent))return PTR_ERR (parent);__hfs_brec_find (parent, fd, hfs_find_rec_by_key); +if (fd->record <0 ) +return -ENOENT ;hfs_bnode_dump (parent); rec = fd->record;
Signature · 1 line
2.3.0
Quoted 17 lines · Sergei Antonov
Fix B-tree corruption when a new record is inserted at position 0 in the node in
hfs_brec_insert(). In this case ahfs_brec_update_parent()is called to update the parent index node (if exists) and it is passedhfs_find_datawith asearch_keycontaining a newly inserted key instead of the key to be updated. This results in an inconsistent index node. The bug reproduces on my machine after an extents overflow record for the catalog file (CNID=4) is inserted into the extents overflow B-tree. Because of a low (reserved) value of CNID=4, it has to become the first record in the first leaf node.
The resulting first leaf node is correct:
----------------------------------------------------
| key0.CNID=4 | key1.CNID=123 | key2.CNID=456, ... |
----------------------------------------------------
But the parent index key0 still contains the previous key CNID=123:
-----------------------
| key0.CNID=123 | ... |
-----------------------
Quoted 3 lines
A change in
hfs_brec_insert()makeshfs_brec_update_parent()work correctly by preventing it from getting fd->record=-1 value from__hfs_brec_find().
The fix looks good for me. Thank you.
Quoted 8 lines
Along the way, I removed duplicate code with unification of the if condition. The resulting code is equivalent to the original code because node is never 0.
Also
hfs_brec_update_parent()will now return an error after getting a negativefd->recordvalue. However, the return value ofhfs_brec_update_parent()is not checked anywhere in the file and I'm leaving it unchanged by this patch.brec.clacks error checking after some other calls too, but this issue is of less importance than the one being fixed by this patch.
But I think that to check the returned value is important. So, how do you feel about adding checking of error codes and some error messages?
Thanks,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
Quoted 60 lines
Cc Joe Perches <[email protected]>Cc Andrew Morton <[email protected]>Cc Vyacheslav Dubeyko <[email protected]>Cc Hin-Tak Leung <[email protected]>Cc Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]>Cc Al Viro <[email protected]>Cc Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Sergei Antonov <[email protected]>--- fs/hfsplus/brec.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)fs/hfsplus/brec.c +11
-9@@ -131,13 +131,16 @@ skip:hfs_bnode_write (node, entry, data_off + key_len, entry_len);hfs_bnode_dump (node); -if (new_node) { -/* update parent key if we inserted a key -* at the start of the first node -*/ -if (!rec && new_node != node) -hfs_brec_update_parent (fd); +/* +* update parent key if we inserted a key +* at the start of the node and it is not the new node +*/ +if (!rec && new_node != node) { +hfs_bnode_read_key (node, fd->search_key, data_off + size); +hfs_brec_update_parent (fd); + } +if (new_node) {hfs_bnode_put (fd->bnode);if (!new_node->parent) {hfs_btree_inc_height (tree);@@ -168,9 +171,6 @@ skip: goto again; } -if (!rec) -hfs_brec_update_parent (fd); -return 0 ; }@@ -370,6 +370,8 @@ again:if (IS_ERR (parent))return PTR_ERR (parent);__hfs_brec_find (parent, fd, hfs_find_rec_by_key); +if (fd->record <0 ) +return -ENOENT ;hfs_bnode_dump (parent); rec = fd->record;