libxfs: directory node splitting does not have an extra block

xfsprogs source commit 4280e59dcbc4cd8e01585efe788a68eb378048e8

xfs_da3_split() has to handle all three versions of the
directory/attribute btree structure. The attr tree is v1, the dir
tre is v2 or v3. The main difference between the v1 and v2/3 trees
is the way tree nodes are split - in the v1 tree we can require a
double split to occur because the object to be inserted may be
larger than the space made by splitting a leaf. In this case we need
to do a double split - one to split the full leaf, then another to
allocate an empty leaf block in the correct location for the new
entry.  This does not happen with dir (v2/v3) formats as the objects
being inserted are always guaranteed to fit into the new space in
the split blocks.

Indeed, for directories they *may* be an extra block on this buffer
pointer. However, it's guaranteed not to be a leaf block (i.e. a
directory data block) - the directory code only ever places hash
index or free space blocks in this pointer (as a cursor of
sorts), and so to use it as a directory data block will immediately
corrupt the directory.

The problem is that the code assumes that there may be extra blocks
that we need to link into the tree once we've split the root, but
this is not true for either dir or attr trees, because the extra
attr block is always consumed by the last node split before we split
the root. Hence the linking in an extra block is always wrong at the
root split level, and this manifests itself in repair as a directory
corruption in a repaired directory, leaving the directory rebuild
incomplete.

This is a dir v2 zero-day bug - it was in the initial dir v2 commit
that was made back in February 1998.

Fix this by ensuring the linking of the blocks after the root split
never tries to make use of the extra blocks that may be held in the
cursor. They are held there for other purposes and should never be
touched by the root splitting code.
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>

fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c

@@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ xfs_da3_split(
 	struct xfs_da_state_blk	*newblk;
 	struct xfs_da_state_blk	*addblk;
 	struct xfs_da_intnode	*node;
-	struct xfs_buf		*bp;
 	int			max;
 	int			action = 0;
 	int			error;
@@ -397,7 +396,9 @@ xfs_da3_split(
 				break;
 			}
 			/*
-			 * Entry wouldn't fit, split the leaf again.
+			 * Entry wouldn't fit, split the leaf again. The new
+			 * extrablk will be consumed by xfs_da3_node_split if
+			 * the node is split.
 			 */
 			state->extravalid = 1;
 			if (state->inleaf) {
@@ -445,6 +446,14 @@ xfs_da3_split(
 	if (!addblk)
 		return 0;
 
+	/*
+	 * xfs_da3_node_split() should have consumed any extra blocks we added
+	 * during a double leaf split in the attr fork. This is guaranteed as
+	 * we can't be here if the attr fork only has a single leaf block.
+	 */
+	ASSERT(state->extravalid == 0 ||
+	       state->path.blk[max].magic == XFS_DIR2_LEAFN_MAGIC);
+
 	/*
 	 * Split the root node.
 	 */
@@ -457,41 +466,31 @@ xfs_da3_split(
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * Update pointers to the node which used to be block 0 and
-	 * just got bumped because of the addition of a new root node.
-	 * There might be three blocks involved if a double split occurred,
-	 * and the original block 0 could be at any position in the list.
+	 * Update pointers to the node which used to be block 0 and just got
+	 * bumped because of the addition of a new root node.  Note that the
+	 * original block 0 could be at any position in the list of blocks in
+	 * the tree.
 	 *
-	 * Note: the magic numbers and sibling pointers are in the same
-	 * physical place for both v2 and v3 headers (by design). Hence it
-	 * doesn't matter which version of the xfs_da_intnode structure we use
-	 * here as the result will be the same using either structure.
+	 * Note: the magic numbers and sibling pointers are in the same physical
+	 * place for both v2 and v3 headers (by design). Hence it doesn't matter
+	 * which version of the xfs_da_intnode structure we use here as the
+	 * result will be the same using either structure.
 	 */
 	node = oldblk->bp->b_addr;
 	if (node->hdr.info.forw) {
-		if (be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.forw) == addblk->blkno) {
-			bp = addblk->bp;
-		} else {
-			ASSERT(state->extravalid);
-			bp = state->extrablk.bp;
-		}
-		node = bp->b_addr;
+		ASSERT(be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.forw) == addblk->blkno);
+		node = addblk->bp->b_addr;
 		node->hdr.info.back = cpu_to_be32(oldblk->blkno);
-		xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, bp,
+		xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, addblk->bp,
 				  XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(node, &node->hdr.info,
 				  sizeof(node->hdr.info)));
 	}
 	node = oldblk->bp->b_addr;
 	if (node->hdr.info.back) {
-		if (be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.back) == addblk->blkno) {
-			bp = addblk->bp;
-		} else {
-			ASSERT(state->extravalid);
-			bp = state->extrablk.bp;
-		}
-		node = bp->b_addr;
+		ASSERT(be32_to_cpu(node->hdr.info.back) == addblk->blkno);
+		node = addblk->bp->b_addr;
 		node->hdr.info.forw = cpu_to_be32(oldblk->blkno);
-		xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, bp,
+		xfs_trans_log_buf(state->args->trans, addblk->bp,
 				  XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(node, &node->hdr.info,
 				  sizeof(node->hdr.info)));
 	}