[PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Ming Lei]

For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
the queue's logical block size.

This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.

So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
troubles.

Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
---
 block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index a16b5abdbbf5..b1a10187ef74 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -729,6 +729,20 @@ void submit_bio_noacct_nocheck(struct bio *bio)
 		__submit_bio_noacct(bio);
 }
 
+static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
+{
+	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
+	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
+
+	if (size & (bs - 1))
+		return false;
+
+	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
+		return false;
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 /**
  * submit_bio_noacct - re-submit a bio to the block device layer for I/O
  * @bio:  The bio describing the location in memory and on the device.
@@ -780,6 +794,9 @@ void submit_bio_noacct(struct bio *bio)
 		}
 	}
 
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bio_check_alignment(bio, q)))
+		goto end_io;
+
 	if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, &q->queue_flags))
 		bio_clear_polled(bio);
 
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Bart Van Assche]

On 3/21/24 06:16, Ming Lei wrote:
> +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> +{
> +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> +
> +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> +		return false;
Why "size &&"? It doesn't harm to reject unaligned bios if size == 0 and
it will reduce the number of if-tests in the hot path.

Why to shift bio->bi_iter.bi_sector left instead of shifting (bs - 1)
right?

Thanks,

Bart.

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Ming Lei]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:14:24AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/21/24 06:16, Ming Lei wrote:
> > +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> > +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> > +
> > +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> > +		return false;
> Why "size &&"? It doesn't harm to reject unaligned bios if size == 0 and
> it will reduce the number of if-tests in the hot path.

It doesn't make sense to check the alignment for bio without data.

> 
> Why to shift bio->bi_iter.bi_sector left instead of shifting (bs - 1)
> right?

unit of bs is bytes, so .bi_sector needs to be converted to byte first.


Thanks,
Ming

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Mike Snitzer]

On Thu, Mar 21 2024 at  9:16P -0400,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:

> For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
> the queue's logical block size.
> 
> This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
> bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
> and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.
> 
> So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
> troubles.
> 
> Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index a16b5abdbbf5..b1a10187ef74 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -729,6 +729,20 @@ void submit_bio_noacct_nocheck(struct bio *bio)
>  		__submit_bio_noacct(bio);
>  }
>  
> +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> +{
> +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> +
> +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * submit_bio_noacct - re-submit a bio to the block device layer for I/O
>   * @bio:  The bio describing the location in memory and on the device.
> @@ -780,6 +794,9 @@ void submit_bio_noacct(struct bio *bio)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bio_check_alignment(bio, q)))
> +		goto end_io;
> +
>  	if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, &q->queue_flags))
>  		bio_clear_polled(bio);
>  
> -- 
> 2.41.0
> 
> 

This check would really help more quickly find buggy code, but it
would be unfortunate for these extra checks to be required in
production.  It feels like this is the type of check that should be
wrapped by a debug CONFIG option (so only debug kernels have it).

Do we already have an appropriate CONFIG option to use?

Mike

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Mike Snitzer wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 21 2024 at  9:16P -0400,
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
> > the queue's logical block size.
> > 
> > This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
> > bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
> > and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.
> > 
> > So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
> > troubles.
> > 
> > Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index a16b5abdbbf5..b1a10187ef74 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -729,6 +729,20 @@ void submit_bio_noacct_nocheck(struct bio *bio)
> >  		__submit_bio_noacct(bio);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> > +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> > +
> > +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	return true;
> > +}

I would change it to

if (unlikely(((bi_iter.bi_sector | bio_sectors(bio)) & ((queue_logical_block_size(q) >> 9) - 1)) != 0))
	return false;

> >  /**
> >   * submit_bio_noacct - re-submit a bio to the block device layer for I/O
> >   * @bio:  The bio describing the location in memory and on the device.
> > @@ -780,6 +794,9 @@ void submit_bio_noacct(struct bio *bio)
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bio_check_alignment(bio, q)))
> > +		goto end_io;
> > +
> >  	if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, &q->queue_flags))
> >  		bio_clear_polled(bio);
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.41.0
> > 
> > 
> 
> This check would really help more quickly find buggy code, but it
> would be unfortunate for these extra checks to be required in
> production.  It feels like this is the type of check that should be
> wrapped by a debug CONFIG option (so only debug kernels have it).
> 
> Do we already have an appropriate CONFIG option to use?
> 
> Mike

But then, the system would crash with the config option being 'n' and 
return an error with the config option being 'y' - which would be 
unfortunate.

We could remove the check from the drivers and add it to the generic I/O 
path - this wouldn't add extra overhead.

Mikulas

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:01:41PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> But then, the system would crash with the config option being 'n' and 
> return an error with the config option being 'y' - which would be 
> unfortunate.
> 
> We could remove the check from the drivers and add it to the generic I/O 
> path - this wouldn't add extra overhead.

Agreed.  This is a pretty cheap check, and I'd rather have it all the
time instead of being duplicated in various drivers, just like we do
a lot of other sanity checking in submit_bio.

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Ming Lei]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:01:41PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 21 2024 at  9:16P -0400,
> > Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
> > > the queue's logical block size.
> > > 
> > > This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
> > > bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
> > > and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.
> > > 
> > > So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
> > > troubles.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > > index a16b5abdbbf5..b1a10187ef74 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > > @@ -729,6 +729,20 @@ void submit_bio_noacct_nocheck(struct bio *bio)
> > >  		__submit_bio_noacct(bio);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> > > +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> > > +
> > > +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	return true;
> > > +}
> 
> I would change it to
> 
> if (unlikely(((bi_iter.bi_sector | bio_sectors(bio)) & ((queue_logical_block_size(q) >> 9) - 1)) != 0))
> 	return false;

What if bio->bi_iter.bi_size isn't aligned with 512? The above check
can't find that at all.

> 
> > >  /**
> > >   * submit_bio_noacct - re-submit a bio to the block device layer for I/O
> > >   * @bio:  The bio describing the location in memory and on the device.
> > > @@ -780,6 +794,9 @@ void submit_bio_noacct(struct bio *bio)
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bio_check_alignment(bio, q)))
> > > +		goto end_io;
> > > +
> > >  	if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, &q->queue_flags))
> > >  		bio_clear_polled(bio);
> > >  
> > > -- 
> > > 2.41.0
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > This check would really help more quickly find buggy code, but it
> > would be unfortunate for these extra checks to be required in
> > production.  It feels like this is the type of check that should be
> > wrapped by a debug CONFIG option (so only debug kernels have it).
> > 
> > Do we already have an appropriate CONFIG option to use?
> > 
> > Mike
> 
> But then, the system would crash with the config option being 'n' and 
> return an error with the config option being 'y' - which would be 
> unfortunate.

Yes, the check is basically zero-cost, not necessary to add config to
make things more complicated.

Thanks,
Ming

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Keith Busch]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:08:11AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:01:41PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > I would change it to
> > 
> > if (unlikely(((bi_iter.bi_sector | bio_sectors(bio)) & ((queue_logical_block_size(q) >> 9) - 1)) != 0))
> > 	return false;
> 
> What if bio->bi_iter.bi_size isn't aligned with 512? The above check
> can't find that at all.

Shouldn't that mean this check doesn't apply to REQ_OP_DRV_IN/OUT?
Those ops don't necessarily imply any alignment requirements. It may not
matter here since it looks like all existing users go through
blk_execute_rq() instead of submit_bio(), but there are other checks for
DRV_IN/OUT in this path, so I guess it is supposed to be supported?

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Ming Lei]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:39:06PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:08:11AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:01:41PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > I would change it to
> > > 
> > > if (unlikely(((bi_iter.bi_sector | bio_sectors(bio)) & ((queue_logical_block_size(q) >> 9) - 1)) != 0))
> > > 	return false;
> > 
> > What if bio->bi_iter.bi_size isn't aligned with 512? The above check
> > can't find that at all.
> 
> Shouldn't that mean this check doesn't apply to REQ_OP_DRV_IN/OUT?

For REQ_OP_DRV_IN/OUT, only the real user IO command may need the check,
and others needn't this check, maybe they don't use .bi_sector or
.bi_size at all.

> Those ops don't necessarily imply any alignment requirements. It may not
> matter here since it looks like all existing users go through
> blk_execute_rq() instead of submit_bio(), but there are other checks for
> DRV_IN/OUT in this path, so I guess it is supposed to be supported?

This patch focuses on FS bio, and passthough request case is more
complicated, and we even don't have central entry for real user pt IO
request only.


Thanks, 
Ming

Re: block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ming Lei wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:01:41PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> > > > +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> > > > +		return false;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> > > > +		return false;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return true;
> > > > +}
> > 
> > I would change it to
> > 
> > if (unlikely(((bi_iter.bi_sector | bio_sectors(bio)) & ((queue_logical_block_size(q) >> 9) - 1)) != 0))
> > 	return false;
> 
> What if bio->bi_iter.bi_size isn't aligned with 512? The above check
> can't find that at all.

Could it happen that bi_size is not aligned to 512? I haven't seen such a 
bio yet. If you have seen it, say where was it created.

Mikulas

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Jens Axboe]

On 3/21/24 7:16 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
> the queue's logical block size.
> 
> This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
> bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
> and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.
> 
> So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
> troubles.
> 
> Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index a16b5abdbbf5..b1a10187ef74 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -729,6 +729,20 @@ void submit_bio_noacct_nocheck(struct bio *bio)
>  		__submit_bio_noacct(bio);
>  }
>  
> +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> +{
> +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> +
> +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * submit_bio_noacct - re-submit a bio to the block device layer for I/O
>   * @bio:  The bio describing the location in memory and on the device.
> @@ -780,6 +794,9 @@ void submit_bio_noacct(struct bio *bio)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bio_check_alignment(bio, q)))
> +		goto end_io;
> +
>  	if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, &q->queue_flags))
>  		bio_clear_polled(bio);

Where is this IO coming from? The normal block level dio has checks. And
in fact they are expensive... If we add this one, then we should be able
to kill the block/fops.c checks, no?

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Where is this IO coming from? The normal block level dio has checks. And
> in fact they are expensive...

How is this expensive when we need the bio cache lines all the time
during I/O submission which follows instantly?

> If we add this one, then we should be able
> to kill the block/fops.c checks, no?

That would mean we'd only get an async error back, and it would be past
say page cache invalidation.  Not sure that's a good way to handle
failed alignment from userspace.

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Jens Axboe]

On 3/21/24 4:09 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Where is this IO coming from? The normal block level dio has checks. And
>> in fact they are expensive...
> 
> How is this expensive when we need the bio cache lines all the time
> during I/O submission which follows instantly?

This part isn't expensive, it's the general dio checks that are which
check memory alignment as well.

>> If we add this one, then we should be able
>> to kill the block/fops.c checks, no?
> 
> That would mean we'd only get an async error back, and it would be past
> say page cache invalidation.  Not sure that's a good way to handle
> failed alignment from userspace.

It would fail during submission, at least for sane cases, so it would be
readily apparent after submit. Unfortunately we still don't have sane
passback of errors there, this is one example and EWOULDBLOCK as well.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 04:50:44PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/21/24 4:09 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Where is this IO coming from? The normal block level dio has checks. And
> >> in fact they are expensive...
> > 
> > How is this expensive when we need the bio cache lines all the time
> > during I/O submission which follows instantly?
> 
> This part isn't expensive, it's the general dio checks that are which
> check memory alignment as well.

Well, the memory alignment has to walk over the whole iterator, so it
definitively is way more expensive.

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Ming Lei]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/21/24 7:16 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
> > the queue's logical block size.
> > 
> > This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
> > bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
> > and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.
> > 
> > So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
> > troubles.
> > 
> > Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  block/blk-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index a16b5abdbbf5..b1a10187ef74 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -729,6 +729,20 @@ void submit_bio_noacct_nocheck(struct bio *bio)
> >  		__submit_bio_noacct(bio);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> > +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> > +
> > +	if (size & (bs - 1))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (size && ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * submit_bio_noacct - re-submit a bio to the block device layer for I/O
> >   * @bio:  The bio describing the location in memory and on the device.
> > @@ -780,6 +794,9 @@ void submit_bio_noacct(struct bio *bio)
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bio_check_alignment(bio, q)))
> > +		goto end_io;
> > +
> >  	if (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_POLL, &q->queue_flags))
> >  		bio_clear_polled(bio);
> 
> Where is this IO coming from? The normal block level dio has checks. And
> in fact they are expensive... If we add this one, then we should be able
> to kill the block/fops.c checks, no?

I think Most of fs code should send good bio since I didn't trigger it in
xfstests.

But we still have md, dm, bcache and target code which build bio in
their way. The reported issue is from device mapper integrity code.

Yes, all (offset & size) alignment in fops.c shouldn't be needed any more.


Thanks,
Ming

Re: [PATCH] block: fail unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:16:34PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> For any bio with data, its start sector and size have to be aligned with
> the queue's logical block size.
> 
> This rule is obvious, but there is still user which may send unaligned
> bio to block layer, and it is observed that dm-integrity can do that,
> and cause double free of driver's dma meta buffer.
> 
> So failfast unaligned bio from submit_bio_noacct() for avoiding more
> troubles.

I've been wanting to do that for the next merge window, as the lack of
this check is kinda stunning.  Note that we have open coded versions
of it in __blkdev_issue_dicard and blkdev_issue_zeroout that can go
away now.

> +static bool bio_check_alignment(struct bio *bio, struct request_queue *q)
> +{
> +	unsigned int bs = q->limits.logical_block_size;
> +	unsigned int size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;

This should just use bdev_logical_block_size() on bio->bi_bdev.