linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] md/raid10: fix incorrect done of recovery

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: <CAPhsuW6UTc+sdVKvYqDX1VN3u9VgmkNVo0b84AxG=DdOY7pfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 09:03:14 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     linan666@...weicloud.com, shli@...com, allenpeng@...ology.com,
        alexwu@...ology.com, bingjingc@...ology.com, neilb@...e.de,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linan122@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com,
        yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] md/raid10: fix incorrect done of recovery

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 6:54 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2023/05/22 19:54, linan666@...weicloud.com 写道:
> > From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
> >
> > Recovery will go to giveup and let chunks_skipped++ in
> > raid10_sync_request() if there are some bad_blocks, and it will return
> > max_sector when chunks_skipped >= geo.raid_disks. Now, recovery fail and
> > data is inconsistent but user think recovery is done, it is wrong.
> >
> > Fix it by set mirror's recovery_disabled and spare device shouln't be
> > added to here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/md/raid10.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> > index e21502c03b45..70cc87c7ee57 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> > @@ -3303,6 +3303,7 @@ static sector_t raid10_sync_request(struct mddev *mddev, sector_t sector_nr,
> >       int chunks_skipped = 0;
> >       sector_t chunk_mask = conf->geo.chunk_mask;
> >       int page_idx = 0;
> > +     int error_disk = -1;
> >
> >       /*
> >        * Allow skipping a full rebuild for incremental assembly
> > @@ -3386,7 +3387,18 @@ static sector_t raid10_sync_request(struct mddev *mddev, sector_t sector_nr,
> >               return reshape_request(mddev, sector_nr, skipped);
> >
> >       if (chunks_skipped >= conf->geo.raid_disks) {
> > -             /* if there has been nothing to do on any drive,
> > +             pr_err("md/raid10:%s: %s fail\n", mdname(mddev),
> > +                     test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_SYNC, &mddev->recovery) ?  "resync" : "recovery");
>
> Line exceed 80 columns, and following.

If it makes the code look better, such as in this case, it is OK to have
lines longer than 80 columns.

Thanks,
Song

> > +             if (error_disk >= 0 && !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_SYNC, &mddev->recovery)) {
>