Re: [syzbot] [ocfs2?] kernel BUG in ocfs2_write_cluster_by_desc

["heming.zhao@suse.com" <heming.zhao@suse.com>]

Regarding the mail thread: [PATCH 2/2] osfs2: Fix kernel BUG in ocfs2_write_cluster

Both ocfs2_search_chain and ocfs2_search_one_group call ocfs2_cluster_group_search to search for an extent cluster block. It seems that the ocfs2_cluster_group_search() sets wrong res->sr_bit_offset.

Just from the code logic, in ocfs2_block_group_find_clear_bits(), the ocfs2_find_next_zero_bit() returns ZERO which can trigger this bug. But in the real world, this function never return 0, because the 0-bit is always set to 1 for the cluster-group itself.

let's verify my thoughts.

#syz test

diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c b/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c
index f7b483f0de2a..d4e563281c9e 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c
@@ -1346,13 +1346,17 @@ static int ocfs2_block_group_find_clear_bits(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
  
  	/* best_size will be allocated, we save prev_best_size */
  	res->sr_max_contig_bits = prev_best_size;
-	if (best_size) {
-		res->sr_bit_offset = best_offset;
-		res->sr_bits = best_size;
-	} else {
+	if (!best_size) {
  		status = -ENOSPC;
-		/* No error log here -- see the comment above
-		 * ocfs2_test_bg_bit_allocatable */
+	} else {
+		if (best_size) {
+			res->sr_bit_offset = best_offset;
+			res->sr_bits = best_size;
+		} else {
+			status = -ENOSPC;
+			/* No error log here -- see the comment above
+			 * ocfs2_test_bg_bit_allocatable */
+		}
  	}
  
  	return status;