| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <201004221336.28530.s.L-H@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:36:26 +0200
From: "Stefan Lippers-Hollmann" <s.L-H@....de>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, king.br@...il.com,
stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: patch md-raid5-allow-for-more-than-2-31-chunks.patch added to 2.6.33-stable tree
Hi
On Thursday 22 April 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:08:30 +0200
> "Stefan Lippers-Hollmann" <s.L-H@....de> wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 April 2010, gregkh@...e.de wrote:
[...]
> > > From 35f2a591192d0a5d9f7fc696869c76f0b8e49c3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > > Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:13:34 +1000
> > > Subject: md/raid5: allow for more than 2^31 chunks.
> > >
> > > From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > >
> > > commit 35f2a591192d0a5d9f7fc696869c76f0b8e49c3d upstream.
> > >
> > > With many large drives and small chunk sizes it is possible
> > > to create a RAID5 with more than 2^31 chunks. Make sure this
> > > works.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Brett King <king.br@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> >
> > This patch, as part of the current 2.6.33 stable queue, breaks compiling
> > on i386 (CONFIG_LBDAF=y) for me (amd64 builds fine):
> >
> > [...]
> > BUILD arch/x86/boot/bzImage
> > Root device is (254, 6)
> > Setup is 12700 bytes (padded to 12800 bytes).
> > System is 2415 kB
> > CRC db6fa5fa
> > Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#1)
> > ERROR: "__umoddi3" [drivers/md/raid456.ko] undefined!
> >
> > reverting just this patch fixes the problem for me.
>
> Thanks for testing and reporting.
>
> If you could verify that this additional patch fixes the compile error I
> would really appreciate it.
I can confirm that this patch on top of the original
md-raid5-allow-for-more-than-2-31-chunks.patch fixes the build problem on
i386 for me (amd64 continues to build fine as well).
Tested-by: Stefan Lippers-Hollmann <s.l-h@....de>
Thank you a lot
Stefan Lippers-Hollmann
--
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 20e4840..58ea0ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> int previous, int *dd_idx,
> struct stripe_head *sh)
> {
> - sector_t stripe;
> + sector_t stripe, stripe2;
> sector_t chunk_number;
> unsigned int chunk_offset;
> int pd_idx, qd_idx;
> @@ -1677,7 +1677,7 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> */
> stripe = chunk_number;
> *dd_idx = sector_div(stripe, data_disks);
> -
> + stripe2 = stripe;
> /*
> * Select the parity disk based on the user selected algorithm.
> */
> @@ -1689,21 +1689,21 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> case 5:
> switch (algorithm) {
> case ALGORITHM_LEFT_ASYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = data_disks - stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = data_disks - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> if (*dd_idx >= pd_idx)
> (*dd_idx)++;
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_RIGHT_ASYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> if (*dd_idx >= pd_idx)
> (*dd_idx)++;
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_LEFT_SYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = data_disks - stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = data_disks - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 1 + *dd_idx) % raid_disks;
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_RIGHT_SYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 1 + *dd_idx) % raid_disks;
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_PARITY_0:
> @@ -1723,7 +1723,7 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
>
> switch (algorithm) {
> case ALGORITHM_LEFT_ASYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - (stripe % raid_disks);
> + pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = pd_idx + 1;
> if (pd_idx == raid_disks-1) {
> (*dd_idx)++; /* Q D D D P */
> @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> (*dd_idx) += 2; /* D D P Q D */
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_RIGHT_ASYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = pd_idx + 1;
> if (pd_idx == raid_disks-1) {
> (*dd_idx)++; /* Q D D D P */
> @@ -1741,12 +1741,12 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> (*dd_idx) += 2; /* D D P Q D */
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_LEFT_SYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - (stripe % raid_disks);
> + pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = (pd_idx + 1) % raid_disks;
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 2 + *dd_idx) % raid_disks;
> break;
> case ALGORITHM_RIGHT_SYMMETRIC:
> - pd_idx = stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = (pd_idx + 1) % raid_disks;
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 2 + *dd_idx) % raid_disks;
> break;
> @@ -1765,7 +1765,7 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> /* Exactly the same as RIGHT_ASYMMETRIC, but or
> * of blocks for computing Q is different.
> */
> - pd_idx = stripe % raid_disks;
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = pd_idx + 1;
> if (pd_idx == raid_disks-1) {
> (*dd_idx)++; /* Q D D D P */
> @@ -1780,7 +1780,8 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
> * D D D P Q rather than
> * Q D D D P
> */
> - pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - ((stripe + 1) % raid_disks);
> + stripe2 += 1;
> + pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = pd_idx + 1;
> if (pd_idx == raid_disks-1) {
> (*dd_idx)++; /* Q D D D P */
> @@ -1792,7 +1793,7 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
>
> case ALGORITHM_ROTATING_N_CONTINUE:
> /* Same as left_symmetric but Q is before P */
> - pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - (stripe % raid_disks);
> + pd_idx = raid_disks - 1 - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks);
> qd_idx = (pd_idx + raid_disks - 1) % raid_disks;
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 1 + *dd_idx) % raid_disks;
> ddf_layout = 1;
> @@ -1800,27 +1801,27 @@ static sector_t raid5_compute_sector(raid5_conf_t *conf, sector_t r_sector,
>
> case ALGORITHM_LEFT_ASYMMETRIC_6:
> /* RAID5 left_asymmetric, with Q on last device */
> - pd_idx = data_disks - stripe % (raid_disks-1);
> + pd_idx = data_disks - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks-1);
> if (*dd_idx >= pd_idx)
> (*dd_idx)++;
> qd_idx = raid_disks - 1;
> break;
>
> case ALGORITHM_RIGHT_ASYMMETRIC_6:
> - pd_idx = stripe % (raid_disks-1);
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks-1);
> if (*dd_idx >= pd_idx)
> (*dd_idx)++;
> qd_idx = raid_disks - 1;
> break;
>
> case ALGORITHM_LEFT_SYMMETRIC_6:
> - pd_idx = data_disks - stripe % (raid_disks-1);
> + pd_idx = data_disks - sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks-1);
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 1 + *dd_idx) % (raid_disks-1);
> qd_idx = raid_disks - 1;
> break;
>
> case ALGORITHM_RIGHT_SYMMETRIC_6:
> - pd_idx = stripe % (raid_disks-1);
> + pd_idx = sector_div(stripe2, raid_disks-1);
> *dd_idx = (pd_idx + 1 + *dd_idx) % (raid_disks-1);
> qd_idx = raid_disks - 1;
> break;
>
>
>
--
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