Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3.4 11/26] md: Fix skipping recovery for read-only arrays. | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Date | Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:11:19 +0000 |
| |
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@intel.com> > > 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@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Dorau <lukasz.dorau@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > --- > 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 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |