[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100318114858.0303157e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:48:58 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm: max_segments=1 if merge_bvec_fn is not supported
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:14:49 +0100
Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:35:37AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > That patch with limits->max_segments = 1; is wrong. It fixes this bug
> > sometimes and sometimes not.
> >
> > The problem is, if someone attempts to create a bio with two vector
> > entries, the first maps the last sector contained in some page and the
> > second maps the first sector of the next physical page: it has one
> > segment, it has size <= PAGE_SIZE, but it still may cross raid stripe and
> > the raid driver will reject it.
>
> Now that you put it that way ;)
> You are right.
>
> My asumption that "single segment" was
> equalvalent in practice with "single bvec"
> does not hold true in that case.
>
> Then, what about adding seg_boundary_mask restrictions as well?
> max_sectors = PAGE_SIZE >> 9;
> max_segments = 1;
> seg_boundary_mask = PAGE_SIZE -1;
> or some such.
>
> > > > This is not the first time this has been patched, btw.
> > > > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440093
> > > > and the patch by Mikulas:
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=342638&action=diff
> >
> > Look at this patch, it is the proper way how to fix it: create a
> > merge_bvec_fn that reject more than one biovec entry.
>
> If adding seg_boundary_mask is still not sufficient,
> lets merge that patch instead?
> Why has it been dropped, respectively never been merged?
> It became obsolete for dm-linear by 7bc3447b,
> but in general the bug is still there, or am I missing something?
>
This all seemed to die. Does Neil's mysterypatch fix all these issues?
Neil, was that patch tagged for -stable backporting?
Thanks.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists