Andreas Haumer wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Andre Noll schrieb:
sorry if this is already known/fixed: Assemble() is called from mdadm.c with
the "update" argument equal to NULL:
Assemble(ss, array_list->devname, mdfd, array_list, configfile,
NULL, readonly, runstop, NULL, verbose-quiet, force);
But in Assemble.c we have
if (ident->uuid_set && (!update && strcmp(update, "uuid")!= 0) && ...
which yields a segfault in glibc's strcmp().
I just found the same problem after upgrading to mdadm-2.2
The logic to test for update not being NULL seems to be
reversed.
I created a small patch which seems to cure the problem
(see attached file)
HTH
- - andreas
- --
Andreas Haumer | mailto:andreas@xxxxxxxxx
*x Software + Systeme | http://www.xss.co.at/
Karmarschgasse 51/2/20 | Tel: +43-1-6060114-0
A-1100 Vienna, Austria | Fax: +43-1-6060114-71
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDtqD0xJmyeGcXPhERAsdiAJ0Ve787gscq4VOGtT+9Qp3k62iUEgCgs9pH
Ekg0gkLEk+99XXHw+1ezdu8=
=rh66
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index: mdadm/Assemble.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/repository/distribution/Utilities/mdadm/Assemble.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.7
diff -u -r1.1.1.7 Assemble.c
--- mdadm/Assemble.c 5 Dec 2005 05:56:20 -0000 1.1.1.7
+++ mdadm/Assemble.c 31 Dec 2005 15:01:34 -0000
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@
}
if (dfd >= 0) close(dfd);
- if (ident->uuid_set && (!update && strcmp(update, "uuid")!= 0) &&
+ if (ident->uuid_set && (update && strcmp(update, "uuid")!= 0) &&
(!super || same_uuid(info.uuid, ident->uuid, tst->ss->swapuuid)==0)) {
if ((inargv && verbose >= 0) || verbose > 0)
fprintf(stderr, Name ": %s has wrong uuid.\n",
Is that right now? Because && evaluates to zero or one left to right,
the parens and the "!=0" are not needed, and I assume they're in for a
reason (other than to make the code hard to understand). A comment
before that if would make the intention clear, I originally though the
"(!update" was intended to be "!(update" which would explain the parens,
but that seems wrong.
If it actually works as intended with the patch, perhaps a comment and
cleanup in 2.3?
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
