Re: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB

Bill Davidsen
2007-05-22T21:30:19Z

Jeff Zheng wrote:
> Fix confirmed, filled the whole 11T hard disk, without crashing.
> I presume this would go into 2.6.22
>
Since it results in a full loss of data, I would hope it goes into
2.6.21.x -stable.

> Thanks again.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
>> [mailto:linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Zheng
>> Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 5:39 p.m.
>> To: Neil Brown; david@lang.hm; Michal Piotrowski; Ingo
>> Molnar; linux-raid@vger.kernel.org;
>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when
>> each disk is 5TB
>>
>>
>> Yeah, seems you've locked it down, :D. I've written 600GB of
>> data now, and anything is still fine.
>> Will let it run overnight, and fill the whole 11T. I'll post
>> the result tomorrow
>>
>> Thanks a lot though.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Neil Brown [mailto:neilb@suse.de]
>>> Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 5:31 p.m.
>>> To: david@lang.hm; Jeff Zheng; Michal Piotrowski; Ingo Molnar;
>>> linux-raid@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>>> linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system,
>> when each disk
>>> is 5TB
>>>
>>> On Thursday May 17, neilb@suse.de wrote:
>>>> Uhm, I just noticed something.
>>>> 'chunk' is unsigned long, and when it gets shifted up, we
>>> might lose
>>>> bits. That could still happen with the 4*2.75T
>> arrangement, but is
>>>> much more likely in the 2*5.5T arrangement.
>>> Actually, it cannot be a problem with the 4*2.75T arrangement.
>>> chuck << chunksize_bits
>>>
>>> will not exceed the size of the underlying device *in*kilobytes*.
>>> In that case that is 0xAE9EC800 which will git in a 32bit long.
>>> We don't double it to make sectors until after we add
>>> zone->dev_offset, which is "sector_t" and so 64bit
>> arithmetic is used.
>>> So I'm quite certain this bug will cause exactly the problems
>>> experienced!!
>>>
>>>> Jeff, can you try this patch?
>>> Don't bother about the other tests I mentioned, just try this one.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> NeilBrown
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
>>>>
>>>> ### Diffstat output
>>>> ./drivers/md/raid0.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff .prev/drivers/md/raid0.c ./drivers/md/raid0.c
>>>> --- .prev/drivers/md/raid0.c 2007-05-17
>>> 10:33:30.000000000 +1000
>>>> +++ ./drivers/md/raid0.c 2007-05-17 15:02:15.000000000 +1000
>>>> @@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static int raid0_make_request (request_q
>>>> x = block >> chunksize_bits;
>>>> tmp_dev = zone->dev[sector_div(x, zone->nb_dev)];
>>>> }
>>>> - rsect = (((chunk << chunksize_bits) + zone->dev_offset)<<1)
>>>> + rsect = ((((sector_t)chunk << chunksize_bits) +
>>>> +zone->dev_offset)<<1)
>>>> + sect_in_chunk;
>>>>
>>>> bio->bi_bdev = tmp_dev->bdev;
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> linux-raid" in the body of a message to
>> majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot