Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> major == 0 allocates dynamic major, not major == -1
I would appreciate if this could be submitted for -stable, since the
negative major number breaks LVM (regardless of whether any such devices are
present). I found this out the hard way when my system failed to boot.
-stable note: This is in Linus' tree as
452380efbd72d8d41f53ea64c8a6ea1fedc4394d
For those who don't know (and potentially as a preface for -stable) the
reason lies in LVM's filtering; in lib/filter/filter.c, lines 230-233:
if ((line_maj <= 0) || (line_maj >= NUMBER_OF_MAJORS)) {
blocksection = (line[i] == 'B') ? 1 : 0;
continue;
}
Basically, it scans through /proc/devices until it hits a line starting with
'B', at which point it starts processing block major numbers and
whitelisting them to be used as PVs. However, the negative number causes a
problem because it a.) sorts to the top of the list and b.) short-circuits
the if(). This causes blocksection to flip back to zero immediately,
terminating the enumeration of permitted devices before any actually get
whitelisted. As a result, *all* block devices are ignored, with messages
such as
Skipping: Unrecognised LVM device type 259
259 being blkext, which LVM explicitly allows.
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
