On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:06:07PM +0900, Yeongjin Gil wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:18:16AM +0900, Yeongjin Gil wrote:
> > > In verity_end_io(), if bi_status is not BLK_STS_OK, it can be return
> > > directly. But if FEC configured, it is desired to correct the data
> > > page through verity_verify_io. And the return value will be converted
> > > to blk_status and passed to verity_finish_io().
> > >
> > > BTW, when a bit is set in v->validated_blocks, verity_verify_io()
> > > skips verification regardless of I/O error for the corresponding bio.
> > > In this case, the I/O error could not be returned properly, and as a
> > > result, there is a problem that abnormal data could be read for the
> > > corresponding block.
> > >
> > > To fix this problem, when an I/O error occurs, do not skip
> > > verification even if the bit related is set in v->validated_blocks.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 843f38d382b1 ("dm verity: add 'check_at_most_once' option to
> > > only validate hashes once")
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Reviewed-by: Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yeongjin Gil <youngjin.gil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> (cherry picked from
> > > commit e8c5d45f82ce0c238a4817739892fe8897a3dcc3)
> >
> > Why did you send this 3 times?
> >
> > And what kernel(s) is this to be applied to?
> >
> > confused,
> I'm sorry for the confusion.
>
> I've got patch failure mail 3 times from 4.19-stable, 5.4-stable,
> 5.10-stable.
> So I replied to each mail after conflict resolution.
> --in-reply-to '2023050708-verdict-proton-a5f0@gregkh'
> --in-reply-to '2023050709-dry-stand-f81b@gregkh'
> --in-reply-to '2023050701-epileptic-unethical-f46c@gregkh'
>
> The stable kernel branches that I want to be applied are the above kernels.
Ah, I lost the sending email from my inbox, as I don't keep that around,
so that's why I missed this, thanks.
Looks like this is already all queued up by Sasha, so thanks!
greg k-h
