Re: Fix potential data loss and corruption due to Incorrect BIO Chain Handling

Ming Lei
2025-11-22T12:01:38Z

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 02:42:43PM +0800, Stephen Zhang wrote:
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> 于2025年11月22日周六 11:35写道：
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 04:17:39PM +0800, zhangshida wrote:
> > > From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@kylinos.cn>
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > We have recently encountered a severe data loss issue on kernel version 4.19,
> > > and we suspect the same underlying problem may exist in the latest kernel versions.
> > >
> > > Environment:
> > > * **Architecture:** arm64
> > > * **Page Size:** 64KB
> > > * **Filesystem:** XFS with a 4KB block size
> > >
> > > Scenario:
> > > The issue occurs while running a MySQL instance where one thread appends data
> > > to a log file, and a separate thread concurrently reads that file to perform
> > > CRC checks on its contents.
> > >
> > > Problem Description:
> > > Occasionally, the reading thread detects data corruption. Specifically, it finds
> > > that stale data has been exposed in the middle of the file.
> > >
> > > We have captured four instances of this corruption in our production environment.
> > > In each case, we observed a distinct pattern:
> > > The corruption starts at an offset that aligns with the beginning of an XFS extent.
> > > The corruption ends at an offset that is aligned to the system's `PAGE_SIZE` (64KB in our case).
> > >
> > > Corruption Instances:
> > > 1. Start:`0x73be000`, **End:** `0x73c0000` (Length: 8KB)
> > > 2. Start:`0x10791a000`, **End:** `0x107920000` (Length: 24KB)
> > > 3. Start:`0x14535a000`, **End:** `0x145b70000` (Length: 8280KB)
> > > 4. Start:`0x370d000`, **End:** `0x3710000` (Length: 12KB)
> > >
> > > After analysis, we believe the root cause is in the handling of chained bios, specifically
> > > related to out-of-order io completion.
> > >
> > > Consider a bio chain where `bi_remaining` is decremented as each bio in the chain completes.
> > > For example,
> > > if a chain consists of three bios (bio1 -> bio2 -> bio3) with
> > > bi_remaining count:
> > > 1->2->2
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > if the bio completes in the reverse order, there will be a problem.
> > > if bio 3 completes first, it will become:
> > > 1->2->1
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > then bio 2 completes:
> > > 1->1->0
> >
> > No, it is supposed to be 1->1->1.
> >
> > When bio 1 completes, it will become 0->0->0
> >
> > bio3's `__bi_remaining` won't drop to zero until bio2's reaches
> > zero, and bio2 won't be done until bio1 is ended.
> >
> > Please look at bio_endio():
> >
> > void bio_endio(struct bio *bio)
> > {
> > again:
> > if (!bio_remaining_done(bio))
> > return;
> > ...
> > if (bio->bi_end_io == bio_chain_endio) {
> > bio = __bio_chain_endio(bio);
> > goto again;
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
>
> Exactly, bio_endio handle the process perfectly, but it seems to forget
> to check if the very first `__bi_remaining` drops to zero and proceeds to
> the next bio:
> -----
> static struct bio *__bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
> {
> struct bio *parent = bio->bi_private;
>
> if (bio->bi_status && !parent->bi_status)
> parent->bi_status = bio->bi_status;
> bio_put(bio);
> return parent;
> }
>
> static void bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
> {
> bio_endio(__bio_chain_endio(bio));
> }

bio_chain_endio() never gets called really, which can be thought as `flag`,
and it should have been defined as `WARN_ON_ONCE(1);` for not confusing people.

So I don't think upstream kernel has the issue you described.

Thanks,
Ming