Hi Jes, yes those devices exist, /dev/oczpcie_11_0_ssd: using cached size 6251381753 sectors The devices were created by the OCZ driver. Thanks, Nikhil. On 06/10/2016 11:42 PM, Nikhil Kshirsagar wrote: > I think the sosreport should contain the info of the raid devices even though mdadm crashes so we don't see that output in there , there is proc/mdstat and other raid related info there. Let me check. > > If nothing else I can ask them for proc/mdstat and mdadm -detail again with the working test binary i sent them. > > -Nikhil. > > >> On 10-Jun-2016, at 11:18 PM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Nikhil Kshirsagar <nkshirsa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Hi Jes , >>> >>> Would it help to examine the core file ? It's present on the machine >>> and location specified in the bz comments . That's how I saw the data >>> structure that had the issue . Indeed there are other device names >>> where the name does not overflow since they are 32 bytes (which is why >>> I chose this value) or where the name *does* get truncated. However >>> this truncation does not seem to happen for de->d_name which is then >>> copied into dev->sys_name. >>> >>> As for allocating an appropriate size on the heap instead of a static >>> array it does make sense and I can correct the fix to do that but >>> there are lots of other device names which are static arrays. So which >>> ones do we change ? >> This is the tricky part, sys_name is used in a lot of places in >> different ways. >> >> Do you know if they have a /dev/oczpcie_11_0_ssd on the system, and if >> they do, how did that device get created? >> >> Cheers, >> Jes -- 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
