On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:18:35 -0500 Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> MD RAID10: Fix a couple potential kernel panics if RAID10 is used by dm-raid
>
> When device-mapper uses the RAID10 personality through dm-raid.c, there is no
> 'gendisk' structure in mddev and some sysfs information is also not populated.
>
> This patch avoids touching those non-existent structures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Index: linux-upstream/drivers/md/md.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-upstream.orig/drivers/md/md.c
> +++ linux-upstream/drivers/md/md.c
> @@ -2056,8 +2056,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(md_integrity_register);
> /* Disable data integrity if non-capable/non-matching disk is being added */
> void md_integrity_add_rdev(struct md_rdev *rdev, struct mddev *mddev)
> {
> - struct blk_integrity *bi_rdev = bdev_get_integrity(rdev->bdev);
> - struct blk_integrity *bi_mddev = blk_get_integrity(mddev->gendisk);
> + struct blk_integrity *bi_rdev;
> + struct blk_integrity *bi_mddev;
> +
> + if (!mddev->gendisk)
> + return;
> +
> + bi_rdev = bdev_get_integrity(rdev->bdev);
> + bi_mddev = blk_get_integrity(mddev->gendisk);
>
> if (!bi_mddev) /* nothing to do */
> return;
> Index: linux-upstream/drivers/md/raid10.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-upstream.orig/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ linux-upstream/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -1632,7 +1632,7 @@ static int raid10_spare_active(struct md
> && !test_bit(Faulty, &tmp->rdev->flags)
> && !test_and_set_bit(In_sync, &tmp->rdev->flags)) {
> count++;
> - sysfs_notify_dirent(tmp->rdev->sysfs_state);
> + sysfs_notify_dirent_safe(tmp->rdev->sysfs_state);
> }
> }
> spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
>
This and the other too all look fine - applied. Thanks.
While reviewing I noticed:
if (value > rs->md.raid_disks) {
rs->ti->error = "Invalid rebuild index given";
return -EINVAL;
}
(in the 'rebuild' handling). That should be 'value >= rs->md.raid_disks'
shouldn't it?
If you agree, please send a patch.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
