[Drbd-dev] [patch] __bio_clone() behaviour
philipp.reisner at linbit.com
Thu Jan 27 09:56:16 CET 2005
Am Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005 17:46 schrieb Lars Marowsky-Bree:
> With the __bio_clone() bugfix by Jens Axboe (in the recent 2.6.10-ac
> kernels or SLES9 SP1) which causes __bio_clone() to copy the bi_io_vec,
> it would always try to copy the _maximum_ size, as defined by
> inline void __bio_clone(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_src)
> request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(bio_src->bi_bdev);
> memcpy(bio->bi_io_vec, bio_src->bi_io_vec, bio_src->bi_max_vecs *
> sizeof(struct bio_vec)); ...
> drbd however only has space for a single iovec (because it's all
> statically allocated right now), and so the memcpy would silently
> overwrite memory.
> The attached patch 'fixes' this up.
> Note that it is a bit ugly but safe, as drbd already asserts that
> bi_vcnt == 1 anyway.
> FWIW, drbd seems to be the only user of __bio_clone() I could find,
> there's no in-tree users, everything goes through bio_clone() otherwise,
> which would have dynamically allocated the properly sized structures.
This really gives me the feeling that I should not have done the
0.7.9 release. --- The only one to blame is myself, who thought it
would be a nice idea to have the same release as SUSE.
Bullshit -> The next release will only happen when I am convinced
that the new release is necessary, and that it will not be a
BTW, regarind this patch: We now modify someone else's BIO.
Is this a good idea ?
: Dipl-Ing Philipp Reisner Tel +43-1-8178292-50 :
: LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 :
: Schönbrunnerstr 244, 1120 Vienna, Austria http://www.linbit.com :
More information about the drbd-dev