smal mdadm 1.5 bug

smal mdadm 1.5 bug

[jwillem]

We have had a raidsystem running for several years 
Created by the Fedora Core 2 installscript. 

Is has bit bigger raidsystem of more than 11 TB
It was installed on 32 bit Fedora Core 2  linux 2.6.10 with mdadm 1.50

After a failure we had one disk that was out sync. 
Couldn't assemble raidset, even with --force -> "Cannot write superblock"

After looking at the sourcecode in the file util.c  from mdadm-1.5.0 we
found out that variable "size" was negative
We changed variable size from "long size" into "unsigned long size" wich
fixed this problem.

Seems that 1.9 already fixed the problem, perhaps even earlyer
But also that 
> Changes Prior to 1.5.0 release
>     -   Fix compiling error with BLKGETSIZE64 and some signed/unsigned 
> comparison warnings.

This was the version we were working on, so something went wrong there. 

Greetings Jan-Willem Michels ( Boy Kentrop working at our company fixed
our problem) 

Re: smal mdadm 1.5 bug

[Neil Brown]

On Monday August 21, jwillem@stads.net wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> We have had a raidsystem running for several years 
> Created by the Fedora Core 2 installscript. 
> 
> Is has bit bigger raidsystem of more than 11 TB
> It was installed on 32 bit Fedora Core 2  linux 2.6.10 with mdadm 1.50
> 
> After a failure we had one disk that was out sync. 
> Couldn't assemble raidset, even with --force -> "Cannot write superblock"
> 
> After looking at the sourcecode in the file util.c  from mdadm-1.5.0 we
> found out that variable "size" was negative
> We changed variable size from "long size" into "unsigned long size" wich
> fixed this problem.
> 
> Seems that 1.9 already fixed the problem, perhaps even earlyer
> But also that 
> > Changes Prior to 1.5.0 release
> >     -   Fix compiling error with BLKGETSIZE64 and some signed/unsigned 
> > comparison warnings.
> 
> This was the version we were working on, so something went wrong there. 
> 
> Greetings Jan-Willem Michels ( Boy Kentrop working at our company fixed
> our problem) 

I'm a little confused..

Are you just telling us that you found a bug in an old version of
mdadm that was fixed in a newer version of mdadm?  Or are you telling
us that there is still a bug in a current version of mdadm?

If so, which version?
mdadm-1.5.0 is very old, and even mdadm-1.9.0 is fairly old.

NeilBrown