linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.4 11/26] md: Fix skipping recovery for read-only arrays.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131117182054.1b57fd20@notabene.brown>
Date:	Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:20:54 +1100
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	Pawel Baldysiak <pawel.baldysiak@...el.com>,
	Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.4 11/26] md: Fix skipping recovery for read-only
 arrays.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:11:19 +0000 Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 22:51 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 3.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@...el.com>
> > 
> > commit 61e4947c99c4494336254ec540c50186d186150b upstream.
> > 
> > Since:
> >         commit 7ceb17e87bde79d285a8b988cfed9eaeebe60b86
> >         md: Allow devices to be re-added to a read-only array.
> > 
> > spares are activated on a read-only array. In case of raid1 and raid10
> > personalities it causes that not-in-sync devices are marked in-sync
> > without checking if recovery has been finished.
> > 
> > If a read-only array is degraded and one of its devices is not in-sync
> > (because the array has been only partially recovered) recovery will be skipped.
> > 
> > This patch adds checking if recovery has been finished before marking a device
> > in-sync for raid1 and raid10 personalities. In case of raid5 personality
> > such condition is already present (at raid5.c:6029).
> > 
> > Bug was introduced in 3.10 and causes data corruption.
> 
> So this fix was not needed for 3.4.  Is it harmful if applied to this
> version?

It is not needed, but it is also not harmful.

NeilBrown


> 
> Ben.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Pawel Baldysiak <pawel.baldysiak@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/md/raid1.c  |    1 +
> >  drivers/md/raid10.c |    1 +
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > @@ -1357,6 +1357,7 @@ static int raid1_spare_active(struct mdd
> >  			}
> >  		}
> >  		if (rdev
> > +		    && rdev->recovery_offset == MaxSector
> >  		    && !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)
> >  		    && !test_and_set_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)) {
> >  			count++;
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> > @@ -1534,6 +1534,7 @@ static int raid10_spare_active(struct md
> >  			}
> >  			sysfs_notify_dirent_safe(tmp->replacement->sysfs_state);
> >  		} else if (tmp->rdev
> > +			   && tmp->rdev->recovery_offset == MaxSector
> >  			   && !test_bit(Faulty, &tmp->rdev->flags)
> >  			   && !test_and_set_bit(In_sync, &tmp->rdev->flags)) {
> >  			count++;
> 


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)