linux-kernel - Re: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20

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:	Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:43:04 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20

Forgot to cc Jens and fixed up the borked mail address of Mike which
I took from the changelog :(

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Out of the blue all my perfectly fine working test machines which use
> RAID stopped working with the very helpful error message:
> 
> 	md/raid1:md1: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
> 	md: pers->run() failed ...
> 
> Reverting a91a2785b20 fixes the problem.
> 
> Neither the subject line:
> 
>  block: Require subsystems to explicitly allocate bio_set integrity mempool
> 
> nor the changelog have any hint why that wreckage is in any way
> sensible.
> 
> The wreckage happens due to:
> 
> -       md_integrity_register(mddev);
> -       return 0;
> +       return md_integrity_register(mddev);
> 
> But the changelog does not give the courtesy of explaining these
> changes. Also there is no fcking reason why the kernel cannot deal
> with the missing integrity capabilities of a drive just by emitting a
> warning msg and dealing gracefully with the outcome.
> 
> All my RAID setups have been working perfectly fine until now, so
> what's the rationale to break this?
> 
> Did anyone test this shite on a non enterprise class hardware with a
> distro default config ? Obviously _NOT_.
> 
> FYI, the config files of those machines are based off a fedora default
> config, so this would hit all raid users based on popular distro
> configs sooner than later.
> 
> Thanks for stealing my time,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
--
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/