Linux RAID subsystem development
 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox