Re: [PATCH] md/raid1: release barrier when REQ_NOWAIT write would block

Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.raid
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 13:41 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
>
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [Critical] Missing RCU read lock around `conf->mirrors[i].rdev` access in `wait_blocked_rdev()`.
I'm not quite sure whether this is a real bug.

> - [High] Early failure paths in `raid1_write_request()` leak the `mddev->writes_pending` reference.
I'll submit a v2 containing this fix, along with the fix for the
mddev->writes_pending

> - [High] Allocating bios and r1bios can sleep even when the `REQ_NOWAIT` flag is set.
@kuai, Should I handle this issue as well, or should I just ignore it
for now?

> --
>
> commit 3db9da0ec804800aa3afb93361ccd18de39ce5f0
> Author: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <[email protected]>
>
> md/raid1: release barrier when REQ_NOWAIT write would block
>
> raid1_write_request() leaks the barrier reference taken by wait_barrier()
> if wait_blocked_rdev() fails for a REQ_NOWAIT write. This patch releases
> the barrier on this failure path to prevent array freeze hangs.
>
> Closes: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
>> index 5b9368bd9e700..f3cc30932ba2b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
>> @@ -1512,6 +1512,7 @@ static void raid1_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
>>  	int max_sectors;
>>  	bool write_behind = false;
>>  	bool is_discard = (bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_DISCARD);
>> +	sector_t sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
>>  
>>  	if (mddev_is_clustered(mddev) &&
>>  	    mddev->cluster_ops->area_resyncing(mddev, WRITE,
>> @@ -1540,6 +1541,7 @@ static void raid1_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
>>  
>>  	if (!wait_blocked_rdev(mddev, bio)) {
>>  		bio_wouldblock_error(bio);
>> +		allow_barrier(conf, sector);
>
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but does this early return path also leak the
> mddev->writes_pending reference?
>
> In raid1_make_request(), md_write_start() unconditionally takes a per-cpu
> reference on mddev->writes_pending before calling raid1_write_request().
> Normally, this is released via md_write_end() inside close_write().
>
> By directly returning here after bio_wouldblock_error(bio), we never call
> md_write_end(). Does this permanently leak the writes_pending counter and
> prevent the array from transitioning to a clean state?
>
> It looks like this same leak exists on the clustered area_resyncing and
> wait_barrier REQ_NOWAIT failure paths earlier in this function, as well as
> the err_handle path if bio_submit_split_bioset() fails.
>
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>
> [Severity: Critical]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but is it safe to call wait_blocked_rdev()
> here without holding the RCU read lock?
>
> Looking at wait_blocked_rdev():
>
> 	for (i = 0; i < disks; i++) {
> 		struct md_rdev *rdev = conf->mirrors[i].rdev;
>
> 		if (!rdev)
> 			continue;
>
> 		/* don't write here until the bad block is acknowledged */
> 		if (test_bit(WriteErrorSeen, &rdev->flags) &&
>
> It accesses the rdev pointer and its fields without rcu_read_lock().
> Could a concurrent device removal (via md_ioctl -> raid1_remove_conf)
> replace the pointer with NULL and free the rdev structure while we are
> dereferencing it here, resulting in a use-after-free?
>
> [Severity: High]
> This is also a pre-existing issue, but if we proceed past this point for a
> REQ_NOWAIT bio, we call alloc_r1bio() and eventually bio_alloc_clone(),
> both of which use GFP_NOIO.
>
> Since memory pool allocations with GFP_NOIO can block when the mempool is
> exhausted under memory pressure, could this cause REQ_NOWAIT writes to
> sleep, defeating the purpose of the REQ_NOWAIT flag?
>
> -- 
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1

-- 
Best Regards,
Abd-Alrhman
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.