On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:38:30AM +0900, Yeongjin Gil wrote:
> > > From: Yeongjin Gil <youngjin.gil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit e8c5d45f82ce0c238a4817739892fe8897a3dcc3 ]
> > >
> > > 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>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > Hello Greg.
> > This patch is the wrong patch I mentioned :( Please check the v2 patch I
> > sent yesterday.
> > If you are still confused, would it be better to change mail subject and
> > send v3?
> I checked that the previous patch was queued in stable kernel.
> (dm verity: skip redundant verity_handle_err() on I/O errors)
It is queued up, see the full series for details.
> I didn't know how to handle dependent commit in stable kernel.
The documentation shows how to do this.
> There is no problem with the below current patch.
> Thank you and I'm sorry for confusion.
Thanks for checking!
greg k-h
