Re: [PATCH] mdadm --detail --scan causes SIGABRT

[Nikhil Kshirsagar <nkshirsa@redhat.com>]

Hi Jes,

yes those devices exist,

  /dev/oczpcie_11_0_ssd: using cached size 6251381753 sectors

The devices were created by the OCZ driver.

Thanks,
Nikhil.


On 06/10/2016 11:42 PM, Nikhil Kshirsagar wrote:
> I think the sosreport should contain the info of the raid devices even though mdadm crashes so we don't see that output in there , there is proc/mdstat and other raid related info  there. Let me check. 
>
> If nothing else I can ask them for proc/mdstat and mdadm -detail again with the working test binary i sent them. 
>
> -Nikhil.
>
>
>> On 10-Jun-2016, at 11:18 PM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nikhil Kshirsagar <nkshirsa@redhat.com> writes:
>>> Hi Jes ,
>>>
>>> Would it help to examine the core file ? It's present on the machine
>>> and location specified in the bz comments . That's how I saw the data
>>> structure that had the issue . Indeed there are other device names
>>> where the name does not overflow since they are 32 bytes (which is why
>>> I chose this value) or where the name *does* get truncated. However
>>> this truncation does not seem to happen for de->d_name which is then
>>> copied into dev->sys_name.
>>>
>>> As for allocating an appropriate size on the heap instead of a static
>>> array it does make sense and I can correct the fix to do that but
>>> there are lots of other device names which are static arrays. So which
>>> ones do we change ?
>> This is the tricky part, sys_name is used in a lot of places in
>> different ways.
>>
>> Do you know if they have a /dev/oczpcie_11_0_ssd on the system, and if
>> they do, how did that device get created?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jes