linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the device-mapper tree with the block tree

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: <e08722e5-d5b8-41d5-92a2-f985a875c24b@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 09:26:57 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the device-mapper tree with the block
 tree

On 18/07/2025 06:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the device-mapper tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/md/dm-stripe.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    5fb9d4341b78 ("dm-stripe: limit chunk_sectors to the stripe size")
> 
> from the block tree and commit:
> 
>    846e9e999dd3 ("dm-stripe: fix a possible integer overflow")
> 
> from the device-mapper tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 

I think that this is the proper merge resolution:

static void stripe_io_hints(struct dm_target *ti,
     struct queue_limits *limits)
{
	struct stripe_c *sc = ti->private;
	unsigned int io_min, io_opt;

	if (!check_shl_overflow(sc->chunk_size, SECTOR_SHIFT, &io_min) && 
!check_mul_overflow(io_min, sc->stripes, &io_opt)) {
		limits->io_min = io_min;
		limits->io_opt = io_opt;
	}
	limits->chunk_sectors = sc->chunk_size;
}


For purpose of atomic writes, we should always set chunk_sectors.

BTW, I tried to apply the conflicting patches from the block tree on 
-next from 17 July, and I was getting strange behaviour:

# vgcreate vg00 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd
  WARNING: Unknown logical_block_size for device /dev/sda.
  WARNING: Unknown logical_block_size for device /dev/sdb.
  WARNING: Unknown logical_block_size for device /dev/sdc.
  WARNING: Unknown logical_block_size for device /dev/sdd.
  Physical volume "/dev/sda" successfully created.
  Physical volume "/dev/sdb" successfully created.
  Physical volume "/dev/sdc" successfully created.
  Physical volume "/dev/sdd" successfully created.
  Volume group "vg00" successfully created
#

I had no such problem on Jens' block for-6.17 tree.

Thanks,
John