On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:16:33PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12 2017, Song Liu wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 02:09:21PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 10 2017, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> If PAGE_SIZE is bigger than 4k, we could read out of the disk boundary. Limit
> >>>> the read size to the end of disk. Write path already has similar limitation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix: 8031c3ddc70a(md/bitmap: copy correct data for bitmap super)
> >>>> Reported-by: Joshua Kinard <kumba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Tested-by: Joshua Kinard <kumba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Given that this bug was introduced by
> >>> Commit: 8031c3ddc70a ("md/bitmap: copy correct data for bitmap super")
> >>>
> >>> and that patch is markted:
> >>>
> >>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4.10+)
> >>>
> >>> I think this patch should be tagged "CC: stable" too.
> >>
> >> I thought the Fix tag is enough, but I'll add the stable
> >>> However ... that earlier patch looks strange to me.
> >>> Why is it that "raid5 cache could write bitmap superblock before bitmap superblock is
> >>> initialized." Can we just get raid5 cache *not* to write the bitmap
> >>> superblock too early?
> >>> I think that would better than breaking code that previously worked.
> >>
> >> That's the log reply code, which must update superblock and hence bitmap
> >> superblock, because reply happens very earlier. I agree the reply might still
> >> have problem with bitmap. We'd better defer reply after the raid is fully
> >> initialized. Song, any idea?
> >>
> >
> > With write back cache, there are two different types of stripes in recovery:
> > data-parity, and data-only. For data-parity stripes, we can simply replay data
> > from the journal. But for data-only stripes, we need to do rcw or rmw to update
> > parities. Currently, the writes are handled with raid5 state machine. Therefore,
> > we wake up mddev->thread in r5l_recovery_log(). It is necessary to finish these
> > stripes before we fully initialize the array, because these stripes need to be
> > handled with write back state machine; while we we always start the array with
> > write through journal_mode.
> >
> > Maybe we can fix this by change the order of initialization in md_run(),
> > specifically, moving bitmap_create() before pers->run().
>
> I've looked at some of the details here now.
>
> I think I would like raid5-cache to not perform any recovery until we
> reach
>
>
> md_wakeup_thread(mddev->thread);
> md_wakeup_thread(mddev->sync_thread); /* possibly kick off a reshape */
>
>
> in do_md_run(). Before that point it is possible to fail and abort -
> e.g. if bitmap_load() fails.
>
> Possibly we could insert another personality call here "->start()" ??
> That could then do whatever is needed before
>
> set_capacity(mddev->gendisk, mddev->array_sectors);
> revalidate_disk(mddev->gendisk);
>
> makes the array accessible.
>
> Might that be reasonable?
Looks good. I think we should call the ->start before
md_wakeup_thread(mddev->thread); because we don't want to start recovery before
log is recovered.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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
