RE: [PATCH v2] dm verity: fix error handling for check_at_most_once on FEC

["Yeongjin Gil" <youngjin.gil@samsung.com>]

> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:18:16AM +0900, Yeongjin Gil wrote:
> > 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@vger.kernel.org
> > Reviewed-by: Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yeongjin Gil <youngjin.gil@samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org> (cherry picked from
> > commit e8c5d45f82ce0c238a4817739892fe8897a3dcc3)
> 
> Why did you send this 3 times?
> 
> And what kernel(s) is this to be applied to?
> 
> confused,
I'm sorry for the confusion.

I've got patch failure mail 3 times from 4.19-stable, 5.4-stable,
5.10-stable.
So I replied to each mail after conflict resolution.
--in-reply-to '2023050708-verdict-proton-a5f0@gregkh'
--in-reply-to '2023050709-dry-stand-f81b@gregkh'
--in-reply-to '2023050701-epileptic-unethical-f46c@gregkh'

The stable kernel branches that I want to be applied are the above kernels.
> 
> greg k-h