Re: [bug report] raid5-ppl: PPL support for disks with write-back cache enabled
Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.raid |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 09:59:39AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This code is nine years old, so what I like to do is add it to the KTODO
> in case anyone wants to fix it.
>
> KTODO: Fix use after free in ppl_do_flush()
>
> Hello Tomasz Majchrzak,
>
> Commit 1532d9e87e8b ("raid5-ppl: PPL support for disks with
> write-back cache enabled") from Dec 27, 2017 (linux-next), leads to
> the following Smatch static checker warning:
>
> drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c:646 ppl_do_flush()
> warn: 'io' was already freed. (line 647)
>
> drivers/md/raid5-ppl.c
> 608 static void ppl_do_flush(struct ppl_io_unit *io)
> 609 {
> 610 struct ppl_log *log = io->log;
> 611 struct ppl_conf *ppl_conf = log->ppl_conf;
> 612 struct r5conf *conf = ppl_conf->mddev->private;
> 613 int raid_disks = conf->raid_disks;
> 614 int flushed_disks = 0;
> 615 int i;
> 616
> 617 atomic_set(&io->pending_flushes, raid_disks);
> 618
> 619 for_each_set_bit(i, &log->disk_flush_bitmap, raid_disks) {
> 620 struct md_rdev *rdev;
> 621 struct block_device *bdev = NULL;
> 622
> 623 rdev = conf->disks[i].rdev;
> 624 if (rdev && !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags))
> 625 bdev = rdev->bdev;
> 626
> 627 if (bdev) {
> 628 struct bio *bio;
> 629
> 630 bio = bio_alloc_bioset(bdev, 0,
> 631 REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_PREFLUSH,
> 632 GFP_NOIO, &ppl_conf->flush_bs);
> 633 bio->bi_private = io;
> 634 bio->bi_end_io = ppl_flush_endio;
> 635
> 636 pr_debug("%s: dev: %ps\n", __func__, bio->bi_bdev);
> 637
> 638 submit_bio(bio);
> 639 flushed_disks++;
> 640 }
> 641 }
> 642
> 643 log->disk_flush_bitmap = 0;
> 644
> 645 for (i = flushed_disks ; i < raid_disks; i++) {
> --> 646 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&io->pending_flushes))
> 647 ppl_io_unit_finished(io);
>
> The ppl_io_unit_finished() function frees "io" so probably there is
> supposed to be a statement after it.
This sentence a word missing. Probably there is supposed to be a *break*
statement.
regards,
dan carpenter