linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.18 083/150] md/raid5: fetch_block must fetch all the blocks handle_stripe

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: <20150114072059.609658645@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:22:34 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Henry Cai <henryplusplus@...il.com>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3.18 083/150] md/raid5: fetch_block must fetch all the blocks handle_stripe_dirtying wants.

3.18-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

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

From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>

commit 108cef3aa41669610e1836fe638812dd067d72de upstream.

It is critical that fetch_block() and handle_stripe_dirtying()
are consistent in their analysis of what needs to be loaded.
Otherwise raid5 can wait forever for a block that won't be loaded.

Currently when writing to a RAID5 that is resyncing, to a location
beyond the resync offset, handle_stripe_dirtying chooses a
reconstruct-write cycle, but fetch_block() assumes a
read-modify-write, and a lockup can happen.

So treat that case just like RAID6, just as we do in
handle_stripe_dirtying.  RAID6 always does reconstruct-write.

This bug was introduced when the behaviour of handle_stripe_dirtying
was changed in 3.7, so the patch is suitable for any kernel since,
though it will need careful merging for some versions.

Fixes: a7854487cd7128a30a7f4f5259de9f67d5efb95f
Reported-by: Henry Cai <henryplusplus@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/md/raid5.c |    7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -2917,8 +2917,11 @@ static int fetch_block(struct stripe_hea
 	     (sh->raid_conf->level <= 5 && s->failed && fdev[0]->towrite &&
 	      (!test_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags) || test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state)) &&
 	      !test_bit(R5_OVERWRITE, &fdev[0]->flags)) ||
-	     (sh->raid_conf->level == 6 && s->failed && s->to_write &&
-	      s->to_write - s->non_overwrite < sh->raid_conf->raid_disks - 2 &&
+	     ((sh->raid_conf->level == 6 ||
+	       sh->sector >= sh->raid_conf->mddev->recovery_cp)
+	      && s->failed && s->to_write &&
+	      (s->to_write - s->non_overwrite <
+	       sh->raid_conf->raid_disks - sh->raid_conf->max_degraded) &&
 	      (!test_bit(R5_Insync, &dev->flags) || test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))))) {
 		/* we would like to get this block, possibly by computing it,
 		 * otherwise read it if the backing disk is insync


--
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/