NetBSD Problem Report #45162

From www@NetBSD.org  Thu Jul 21 09:20:06 2011
Return-Path: <www@NetBSD.org>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [204.152.190.11])
	by www.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4575A63C6F2
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:20:06 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20110721092005.5319F63BA8C@www.NetBSD.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:20:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: manu@NetBSD.org
Reply-To: manu@NetBSD.org
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: raidctl does not complain on unsupported setup (RAID 1 with >2 components)
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         45162
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       raidctl does not complain on unsupported setup (RAID 1 with >2 components)
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    oster
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Jul 21 09:25:00 +0000 2011
>Last-Modified:  Sat Aug 07 02:35:00 +0000 2021
>Originator:     Emmanuel Dreyfus
>Release:        NetBSD-5.1
>Organization:
The NetBSD project
>Environment:
>Description:
raidframe level 1 with more than 2 components are not supported, as explained in raidctl(8) man page. However, raidctl(8) will not complain when one attempts to confiture an unsupported setup such as this one:

START array
1 4 0

START disks
/dev/wd0a
/dev/wd1a
/dev/wd2a
/dev/wd3a

START layout
32 1 1 1

START queue
fifo 100

raidctl should complain about the unsupported setup, and suggest to do a RAID of RAID to acheive the goal.
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:

>Audit-Trail:
From: Jarmo Jaakkola <jarmo.jaakkola@iki.fi>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/45162
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:07:05 +0200

 I'd say the seriousness should be raised on this.  I managed to configure
 an unsupported RAID 1 (3 components).  It seemed to work right until I
 needed to reconstruct it.  Then the system would just hang shortly after
 being instructed to start the reconstruction.  Kind of the worst moment
 to notice you're running an invalid configuration :P

 Probably it would be the best if the kernel would refuse to configure
 invalid configurations.

 (If you want more info on my case, I was just discussing this problem on
 netbsd-users, read the archives)

 -- 
 Jarmo Jaakkola

From: manu@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus)
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org, netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/45162
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:12:30 +0100

 Jarmo Jaakkola <jarmo.jaakkola@iki.fi> wrote:

 >  I'd say the seriousness should be raised on this.  I managed to configure
 >  an unsupported RAID 1 (3 components).  It seemed to work right until I
 >  needed to reconstruct it.  Then the system would just hang shortly after
 >  being instructed to start the reconstruction. 

 That looks unpleasant, buy why Cc: me? Perhaps you meant bouyer@?

 -- 
 Emmanuel Dreyfus
 http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
 manu@netbsd.org

From: David Holland <dholland-bugs@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/45162
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:07:00 +0000

 On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:15:01AM +0000, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
  >  That looks unpleasant, buy why Cc: me? Perhaps you meant bouyer@?

 ...because you filed the PR?

 -- 
 David A. Holland
 dholland@netbsd.org

From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/45162
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:02:20 +0000

 On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:10:01AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
 >  ...because you filed the PR?

 Ooops, sorry. It has been idle for 30 months, and I completely forgot
 about it. I see the problem worsened over releases, which is not nice.

 -- 
 Emmanuel Dreyfus
 manu@netbsd.org

Responsible-Changed-From-To: bin-bug-people->oster
Responsible-Changed-By: oster@NetBSD.org
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:25:55 +0000
Responsible-Changed-Why:
RAIDframe bugs are typically mine, but feel free to fix them!


From: "Greg Oster" <oster@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: PR/45162 CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:34:12 +0000

 Module Name:	src
 Committed By:	oster
 Date:		Fri Jul 23 22:34:12 UTC 2021

 Modified Files:
 	src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_raid1.c

 Log Message:
 The number of components used must be at least 2.  An odd number of components
 is not allowed.

 PR bin/45162


 To generate a diff of this commit:
 cvs rdiff -u -r1.38 -r1.39 src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_raid1.c

 Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the
 copyright notices on the relevant files.

From: Greg Oster <oster@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: PR/45162 CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:42:18 -0600

 It turns out the 'fix' for this PR is not as obvious as it once seemed.

 RAIDframe *does* support RAID 1 with more than 2 components, but not in 
 the way one might expect.  Given six components: a, b, c, d, e, and f, 
 RAIDframe will create a 2-dimensional array, where the concatenation of 
   a, c, and e will be mirrored by the concatenation of b, d, and f.

 Where things are falling apart is with an odd number of components, 
 which now fails (until someone writes a n-way RAID 1 for RAIDframe).

 Later...

 Greg Oster

From: David Holland <dholland-bugs@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: oster@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: PR/45162 CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2021 02:30:04 +0000

 On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:45:01PM +0000, Greg Oster wrote:
  > From: Greg Oster <oster@netbsd.org>
  > To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
  > Cc: 
  > Subject: Re: PR/45162 CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
  > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:42:18 -0600
  > 
  >  It turns out the 'fix' for this PR is not as obvious as it once seemed.
  >  
  >  RAIDframe *does* support RAID 1 with more than 2 components, but not in 
  >  the way one might expect.  Given six components: a, b, c, d, e, and f, 
  >  RAIDframe will create a 2-dimensional array, where the concatenation of 
  >    a, c, and e will be mirrored by the concatenation of b, d, and f.

 That seems like something that is maybe better not to inflict on users
 without warning :-)

  >  Where things are falling apart is with an odd number of components, 
  >  which now fails (until someone writes a n-way RAID 1 for RAIDframe).

 I think that means we can close the PR, which was not asking for such
 support, just complaining that it silently failed if you tried to
 configure it. Right?

 -- 
 David A. Holland
 dholland@netbsd.org

>Unformatted:

NetBSD Home
NetBSD PR Database Search

(Contact us) $NetBSD: query-full-pr,v 1.46 2020/01/03 16:35:01 leot Exp $
$NetBSD: gnats_config.sh,v 1.9 2014/08/02 14:16:04 spz Exp $
Copyright © 1994-2020 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.