linux-kernel - [86/89] md/raid5: fix FUA request handling in ops_run

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]

Message-Id: <20110616000237.398186525@clark.kroah.org>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:00:49 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: [86/89] md/raid5: fix FUA request handling in ops_run_io()

2.6.39-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>

commit b062962edb086011e94ec4d9eb3f6a6d814f2a8f upstream.

Commit e9c7469bb4f5 ("md: implment REQ_FLUSH/FUA support")
introduced R5_WantFUA flag and set rw to WRITE_FUA in that case.
However remaining code still checks whether rw is exactly same
as WRITE or not, so FUAed-write ends up with being treated as
READ. Fix it.

This bug has been present since 2.6.37 and the fix is suitable for any
-stable kernel since then.  It is not clear why this has not caused
more problems.

Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>

---
 drivers/md/raid5.c |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -514,7 +514,7 @@ static void ops_run_io(struct stripe_hea
 		bi = &sh->dev[i].req;
 
 		bi->bi_rw = rw;
-		if (rw == WRITE)
+		if (rw & WRITE)
 			bi->bi_end_io = raid5_end_write_request;
 		else
 			bi->bi_end_io = raid5_end_read_request;
@@ -548,13 +548,13 @@ static void ops_run_io(struct stripe_hea
 			bi->bi_io_vec[0].bv_offset = 0;
 			bi->bi_size = STRIPE_SIZE;
 			bi->bi_next = NULL;
-			if (rw == WRITE &&
+			if ((rw & WRITE) &&
 			    test_bit(R5_ReWrite, &sh->dev[i].flags))
 				atomic_add(STRIPE_SECTORS,
 					&rdev->corrected_errors);
 			generic_make_request(bi);
 		} else {
-			if (rw == WRITE)
+			if (rw & WRITE)
 				set_bit(STRIPE_DEGRADED, &sh->state);
 			pr_debug("skip op %ld on disc %d for sector %llu\n",
 				bi->bi_rw, i, (unsigned long long)sh->sector);


--
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/