On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 22:51 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit 61e4947c99c4494336254ec540c50186d186150b upstream.
>
> Since:
> commit 7ceb17e87bde79d285a8b988cfed9eaeebe60b86
> md: Allow devices to be re-added to a read-only array.
>
> spares are activated on a read-only array. In case of raid1 and raid10
> personalities it causes that not-in-sync devices are marked in-sync
> without checking if recovery has been finished.
>
> If a read-only array is degraded and one of its devices is not in-sync
> (because the array has been only partially recovered) recovery will be skipped.
>
> This patch adds checking if recovery has been finished before marking a device
> in-sync for raid1 and raid10 personalities. In case of raid5 personality
> such condition is already present (at raid5.c:6029).
>
> Bug was introduced in 3.10 and causes data corruption.
So this fix was not needed for 3.4. Is it harmful if applied to this
version?
Ben.
> Signed-off-by: Pawel Baldysiak <pawel.baldysiak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid1.c | 1 +
> drivers/md/raid10.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -1357,6 +1357,7 @@ static int raid1_spare_active(struct mdd
> }
> }
> if (rdev
> + && rdev->recovery_offset == MaxSector
> && !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)
> && !test_and_set_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)) {
> count++;
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -1534,6 +1534,7 @@ static int raid10_spare_active(struct md
> }
> sysfs_notify_dirent_safe(tmp->replacement->sysfs_state);
> } else if (tmp->rdev
> + && tmp->rdev->recovery_offset == MaxSector
> && !test_bit(Faulty, &tmp->rdev->flags)
> && !test_and_set_bit(In_sync, &tmp->rdev->flags)) {
> count++;
--
Ben Hutchings
Beware of bugs in the above code;
I have only proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part