| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:40:22 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: "Stefan Lippers-Hollmann" <s.L-H@....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
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:08:30 +0200
"Stefan Lippers-Hollmann" <s.L-H@....de> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thursday 22 April 2010, gregkh@...e.de wrote:
> > This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
> >
> > Subject: md/raid5: allow for more than 2^31 chunks.
> >
> > to the 2.6.33-stable tree. Its filename is
> >
> > md-raid5-allow-for-more-than-2-31-chunks.patch
> >
> > A git repo of this tree can be found at
> > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> >
> >
> > 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.
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