linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: block tree build failure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:49:39 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: block tree build failure

On Friday June 26, jens.axboe@...cle.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26 2009, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Fri, June 26, 2009 12:53 pm, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Jens,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> > >
> > > block/blk-core.c: In function '__make_request':
> > > block/blk-core.c:1179: error: expected ';' before 'return'
> > >
> > > Caused by commit 6cf2a6c8d01514e86a8d38e4eeed402378b635dc ("Restore
> > > barrier support for md and probably other virtual devices") which I have
> > > reverted for today.
> > 
> > Arg, that's my fault - sorry.
> > 
> > +               bio_endio(bio, -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > +                       return 0;
> > 
> > should of course be
> > 
> > +               bio_endio(bio, -EOPNOTSUPP);
> > +               return 0;
> 
> I was certain I ran it through a compile cycle, sorry about that
> Stephen. And Neil sending uncompiled patches, very uncool. Did you even
> test it? I've pulled it for now.

I tested this time.
Without the patch a 'mount -o journal=1 /dev/md0 /mnt'
followed by writing to /mnt/something produces

Jun 26 15:34:18 dell kernel: JBD: barrier-based sync failed on md0 - disabling barriers

in the kernel logs.
With the patch, it doesn't.

Comment updated slightly too.

NeilBrown

Author: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Date:   Fri Jun 26 15:41:35 2009 +1000

Restore barrier support for md and probably other virtual devices.

The next_ordered flag is only meaningful for devices that use __make_request.
So move the test against next_ordered out of generic code and in to
__make_request

Since this test was added, barriers have not worked on md or any
devices that don't use __make_request and so don't bother to set
next_ordered.  (dm explicitly sets something other than
QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE since
  commit 99360b4c18f7675b50d283301d46d755affe75fd
but notes in the comments that it is otherwise meaningless).

Cc: Ken Milmore <ken.milmore@...glemail.com>
Cc: stable@...nel.org
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>

diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index b06cf5c..2283116 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -1172,6 +1172,11 @@ static int __make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
 	const int unplug = bio_unplug(bio);
 	int rw_flags;
 
+	if (bio_barrier(bio) && bio_has_data(bio) &&
+	    (q->next_ordered == QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE)) {
+		bio_endio(bio, -EOPNOTSUPP);
+		return 0;
+	}
 	/*
 	 * low level driver can indicate that it wants pages above a
 	 * certain limit bounced to low memory (ie for highmem, or even
@@ -1472,11 +1477,6 @@ static inline void __generic_make_request(struct bio *bio)
 			err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 			goto end_io;
 		}
-		if (bio_barrier(bio) && bio_has_data(bio) &&
-		    (q->next_ordered == QUEUE_ORDERED_NONE)) {
-			err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
-			goto end_io;
-		}
 
 		ret = q->make_request_fn(q, bio);
 	} while (ret);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/