All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi" <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, yukuai@fygo.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] md/raid1: advertise atomic write limits and handle runtime constraints
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:38:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260628143812.30C801F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260628142420.1051027-3-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Atomic write limits are improperly configured and completely overwritten during limit stacking.
--

commit c2837eff05b0ac2b80653d924f40f1bef7bad6d3
Author: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>

md/raid1: advertise atomic write limits and handle runtime constraints

Atomic writes in RAID1 must fit within a single barrier unit. Advertise
this restriction through the queue limits by setting
atomic_write_hw_unit_max to BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE so that bios which
would cross a barrier-unit boundary are rejected by the block layer
before reaching MD.

A bio that passes block-layer validation may still become unserviceable
within RAID1 due to bad blocks or write-behind constraints. In the former
case, complete the bio with EIO. In the latter case, disable
write-behind rather than failing the bio with EIO.

> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -1633,10 +1620,24 @@ static bool raid1_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
[ ... ]
>  	if (max_sectors < bio_sectors(bio)) {
> +		if (atomic) {
> +			bio_io_error(bio);
> +			goto err_dec_pending;
> +		}
> +

[Severity: High]
Will this result in atomic writes dynamically failing with unexpected I/O
errors instead of being properly rejected early by the block layer?

Because the limits configured in raid1_set_limits() appear to get overwritten
during stacking, boundary-crossing bios will bypass block layer validation and
trigger an error dynamically here.

>  		bio = bio_submit_split_bioset(bio, max_sectors,
>  					      &conf->bio_split);
[ ... ]
> @@ -3229,6 +3230,7 @@ static int raid1_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
>  	lim.max_write_zeroes_sectors = 0;
>  	lim.max_hw_wzeroes_unmap_sectors = 0;
>  	lim.logical_block_size = mddev->logical_block_size;
> +	lim.atomic_write_hw_unit_max = BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE;
> +	lim.features |= BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES;
> +	lim.features |= BLK_FEAT_PCI_P2PDMA;
>  	err = mddev_stack_rdev_limits(mddev, &lim, MDDEV_STACK_INTEGRITY);

[Severity: High]
Is BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE being assigned in sectors while the
atomic_write_hw_unit_max limit expects bytes? If so, this might artificially
cap atomic writes to mismatched units.

Additionally, will these custom RAID1 atomic limits be completely overwritten
when stacking?

Because atomic_write_hw_max is left unmodified from its default of UINT_MAX,
when mddev_stack_rdev_limits() is called:

mddev_stack_rdev_limits() ->
   queue_limits_stack_bdev() ->
      blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits() ->
         blk_stack_atomic_writes_head()

The stacking code will see UINT_MAX and unconditionally overwrite the newly
configured RAID1 limit with the first underlying device's limits.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260628142420.1051027-1-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com?part=2

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-28 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-28 14:24 [PATCH v2 0/7] md/raid10: fixes, atomic write handling, and error-path cleanup Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] md/raid10: fix r10bio leak in raid10_write_request() error paths Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:39   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] md/raid1: advertise atomic write limits and handle runtime constraints Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:38   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] md/raid10: consistently fail atomic writes that require splitting Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-28 21:35     ` Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] md/raid10: remove unnecessary barrier around bio_submit_split_bioset() Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] md/raid10: replace wait loop with wait_event_idle() Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] md/raid10: simplify write request error handling Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi
2026-06-28 14:24 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] md/raid10: simplify read " Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260628143812.30C801F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=abd.masalkhi@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=yukuai@fygo.io \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.