| Message ID | 150646593710.6049.14872100814913109721.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | b18d4b8a25af |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/label.c b/drivers/nvdimm/label.c index 9c5f108910e3..de66c02f6140 100644 --- a/drivers/nvdimm/label.c +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/label.c @@ -1050,7 +1050,7 @@ static int init_labels(struct nd_mapping *nd_mapping, int num_labels) nsindex = to_namespace_index(ndd, 0); memset(nsindex, 0, ndd->nsarea.config_size); for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { - int rc = nd_label_write_index(ndd, i, i*2, ND_NSINDEX_INIT); + int rc = nd_label_write_index(ndd, i, 3 - i, ND_NSINDEX_INIT); if (rc) return rc;
The set of valid sequence numbers is {1,2,3}. The specification indicates that an implementation should consider 0 a sign of a critical error: UEFI 2.7: 13.19 NVDIMM Label Protocol Software never writes the sequence number 00, so a correctly check-summed Index Block with this sequence number probably indicates a critical error. When software discovers this case it treats it as an invalid Index Block indication. While the expectation is that the invalid block is just thrown away, the Robustness Principle says we should fix this to make both sequence numbers valid. Fixes: f524bf271a5c ("libnvdimm: write pmem label set") Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Reported-by: Juston Li <juston.li@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> --- drivers/nvdimm/label.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)