[Bug 371657] New: attempt to access beyond end of device when using dmraid
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657 Summary: attempt to access beyond end of device when using dmraid Product: openSUSE 10.3 Version: Final Platform: x86-64 OS/Version: openSUSE 10.3 Status: NEW Severity: Critical Priority: P5 - None Component: Kernel AssignedTo: kernel-maintainers@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: deanjo@sasktel.net QAContact: qa@suse.de Found By: --- Created an attachment (id=202477) --> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=202477) boot.msg log OK this issue seems to be tied to dmraid. If a software raid 0 is set up on these drives, everything functions as it should. When using dmraid though you get spammed with hundreds of lines like this during boot. Oddly enough they seem to be tied to my larger drives Seagates 7200.11 500 Gig Sata 2 drives. I also have 2 Maxtor 250 Gig drives running dmraid on the same controller (sda and sdb) and they do not have the same issue. It looks like that it can't figure out the drive geometry for the Seagate raids. I'm posting my boot.msg as an attachment Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535936, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: printk: 30 messages suppressed. Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: Buffer I/O error on device sde1, logical block 1953535872 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535937, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: Buffer I/O error on device sde1, logical block 1953535873 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535938, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535939, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535940, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535941, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535942, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535943, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535936, limit=976773168 Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device Mar 17 00:19:22 my kernel: sde: rw=0, want=1953535937, limit=976773168 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User jeffm@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c1
Jeff Mahoney
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c2
--- Comment #2 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c3
--- Comment #3 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c4
--- Comment #4 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
Jeff Mahoney
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c5
--- Comment #5 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User jeffm@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c6
Jeff Mahoney
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c7
--- Comment #7 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User cthiel@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c8
Christoph Thiel
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c9
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User gregkh@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c10
Greg Kroah-Hartman
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c11
--- Comment #11 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c12
--- Comment #12 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c13
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c14
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c15
--- Comment #15 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c16
--- Comment #16 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c17
--- Comment #17 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User jeffm@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c18
Jeff Mahoney
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c19
--- Comment #19 from Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c20
--- Comment #20 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c21
--- Comment #21 from Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c22
Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c23
Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c24
--- Comment #24 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c28
Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c29
--- Comment #29 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c30
--- Comment #30 from Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c31
--- Comment #31 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c32
--- Comment #32 from Kay Sievers
Thanks for the patch Kay, but do you have an idea why if you have two installations of the OS on separate raid sets that they can easily mount each others raid volumes without the messages appearing? What does the partitioner do different on install to a raid set volume that it does not do for a secondary raid set?
No, I have no idea. The messages should happen when probing for a raid setup (signature at the end of the volume) on any partition that is larger than the disk itself (table on first raid 0 disk, pointing to sectors of second raid0 disk). Udev will try to read the end of all the partitions the kernel announces. I have no idea why this does not to happen in your case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c33
--- Comment #33 from Dean Hilkewich
(In reply to comment #31 from Dean Hilkewich)
Thanks for the patch Kay, but do you have an idea why if you have two installations of the OS on separate raid sets that they can easily mount each others raid volumes without the messages appearing? What does the partitioner do different on install to a raid set volume that it does not do for a secondary raid set?
No, I have no idea. The messages should happen when probing for a raid setup (signature at the end of the volume) on any partition that is larger than the disk itself (table on first raid 0 disk, pointing to sectors of second raid0 disk).
Udev will try to read the end of all the partitions the kernel announces. I have no idea why this does not to happen in your case.
Right, therefore the partitioner has to be doing something different when creating a secondary raid set then it does on the primary raid set which leads us back to the partitioner being the cause of the issues with it not writing the table on the first disk properly of the second raid set. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c34
--- Comment #34 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c35
--- Comment #35 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c36
--- Comment #36 from Kay Sievers
So despite this being around forever as a bug @ a P1 and now being marked as a P4 that this bug will not be fixed for 11.1?
I do not think that the general problem causing this "bug" will be fixed. The problem is that the kernel parses partitions and creates block devices without knowing about the context or the metadata of the volume. All of these partitions should not exist in the first place, because the disk is part of a raid setup. But the kernel does not know that, and creates completely invalid partitions. There are two possible fixes, one would be to teach the kernel about all possible raid metadata, if the kernel wants to continue parsing partition tables. The other option would be to parse partitions only in userspace and not in the kernel. Both options are unlikely to happen _now_. In the upstream kernel we made sure (it's merged, but still tested and not in a released version) that partitions point only to a valid storage area, which will prevent the "access beyond end of device" warning. But still, it's only a cosmetic change to the underlying problem. We can port the upstream "cosmetic" fix to 11.1, if it survives the released upstream kernel (the former fix got removed because it broke some setups), but I do not see any "nice" fix to the general problem. The problem is known and exists since a while, without any good idea to fix it so far. Your specific behavior, that your second array behaves differently from the first one, nobody has an idea why this could be, so unfortunately, for now, I'm not sure what we can expect to be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c37
--- Comment #37 from Dean Hilkewich
(In reply to comment #35 from Dean Hilkewich)
So despite this being around forever as a bug @ a P1 and now being marked as a P4 that this bug will not be fixed for 11.1?
I do not think that the general problem causing this "bug" will be fixed.
The problem is that the kernel parses partitions and creates block devices without knowing about the context or the metadata of the volume. All of these partitions should not exist in the first place, because the disk is part of a raid setup. But the kernel does not know that, and creates completely invalid partitions.
There are two possible fixes, one would be to teach the kernel about all possible raid metadata, if the kernel wants to continue parsing partition tables. The other option would be to parse partitions only in userspace and not in the kernel. Both options are unlikely to happen _now_.
In the upstream kernel we made sure (it's merged, but still tested and not in a released version) that partitions point only to a valid storage area, which will prevent the "access beyond end of device" warning. But still, it's only a cosmetic change to the underlying problem.
We can port the upstream "cosmetic" fix to 11.1, if it survives the released upstream kernel (the former fix got removed because it broke some setups), but I do not see any "nice" fix to the general problem. The problem is known and exists since a while, without any good idea to fix it so far.
Your specific behavior, that your second array behaves differently from the first one, nobody has an idea why this could be, so unfortunately, for now, I'm not sure what we can expect to be fixed.
Well as I mentioned before in Comment 34, I believe we are barking up the wrong tree here. The partitioner is setting up the second arrays partition scheme different then the first. All errors disappear when the array is partitioned with another OS's partitioner. I have even verified this on Fedora and it creates the secondary raid set fine on it's own. While the primary set when creating the set does mark extended partition as a "f W95 Ext'd (LBA)" it does not do so for a secondary set in opensuse. It does however do it when partitioned in Fedora or windows. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c38
Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
Kay Sievers
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c39
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User jkupec@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c40
Ján Kupec
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c41
--- Comment #41 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User kasievers@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c42
Kay Sievers
So is it a kernel issue or not?
I don't see how it is when using another partitioner resolves the issue.
Dean, you changed it to "kernel" yesterday:
Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c43
--- Comment #43 from Dean Hilkewich
So is it a kernel issue or not?
I don't see how it is when using another partitioner resolves the issue.
Dean, you changed it to "kernel" yesterday:
Dean Hilkewich
changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------- Component|YaST2 |Kernel
Please do not change theses fields, they are used to coordinate who's looking at the bug internally.
I swear I did not do that. If I did it was purely unintentional. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User aschnell@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c44
Arvin Schnell
So if this really differs on several dmraid volumes the behavior must come from parted (bug or feature?). Maybe our parted maintainer knowns more. AFAIU the parted code, it should set the type of extended partition to 0xf if
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User puzel@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c45
Petr Uzel
YaST uses parted to create extended partitions and does not specify whether 0x05 or 0x0F should be used as type. The type can be forced with 'parted /dev/hdx set 1 type 0xf' in case its needed.
-- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User aschnell@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c46
Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c47
--- Comment #47 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User aschnell@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c48
--- Comment #48 from Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c49
--- Comment #49 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c51
--- Comment #51 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User aschnell@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c52
--- Comment #52 from Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User deanjo@sasktel.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c53
--- Comment #53 from Dean Hilkewich
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657
User swamp@suse.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=371657#c54
Swamp Script User
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com