[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <229ac866-9710-5dbe-80c4-61498f807662@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 19:49:38 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: Convert stripe_head's "dev" to flexible array
member
Hi, Christoph
在 2023/05/18 12:27, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
It's not related to this patch, just I think I found a problem while
reviewing raid5 code, commit e82ed3a4fbb5 ("md/raid6: refactor
raid5_read_one_chunk") changes the caculation of 'end_sector',
'end_sector' is compared to 'rdev->recovery_offset', so it should be
offset to rdev, but this commit change it to offset to the array.
Perhaps following change will make sense:
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
index 7e2bbcfef325..8686d629e3f2 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -5516,7 +5516,7 @@ static int raid5_read_one_chunk(struct mddev
*mddev, struct bio *raid_bio)
sector = raid5_compute_sector(conf, raid_bio->bi_iter.bi_sector, 0,
&dd_idx, NULL);
- end_sector = bio_end_sector(raid_bio);
+ end_sector = sector + bio_sectors(raid_bio);
rcu_read_lock();
if (r5c_big_stripe_cached(conf, sector))
Thanks,
Kuai
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:33:14PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> sc = kmem_cache_create(conf->cache_name[conf->active_name],
>> - sizeof(struct stripe_head)+(devs-1)*sizeof(struct r5dev),
>> + struct_size((struct stripe_head *)0, dev, devs),
>> 0, 0, NULL);
>> if (!sc)
>> return 1;
>> @@ -2559,7 +2559,7 @@ static int resize_stripes(struct r5conf *conf, int newsize)
>>
>> /* Step 1 */
>> sc = kmem_cache_create(conf->cache_name[1-conf->active_name],
>> - sizeof(struct stripe_head)+(newsize-1)*sizeof(struct r5dev),
>> + struct_size((struct stripe_head *)0, dev, newsize),
>
> The constant you're casting here should be NULL, not 0.
> Also given that this expression is duplicated, I'd suggest a little
> helper for it…
>
>> - } dev[1]; /* allocated with extra space depending of RAID geometry */
>> + } dev[]; /* allocated with extra space depending of RAID geometry */
>
> And this isn't extra space over the single entry anymore, so I'd
> change this to:
>
> /* allocated depending of RAID geometry */
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists