* [PATCH 0/2] md: widen size/count types for large arrays
@ 2026-07-10 13:23 Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t Hiroshi Nishida
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Song Liu, Yu Kuai
Cc: Li Nan, Xiao Ni, linux-raid, linux-kernel, Hiroshi Nishida
Two small type-widening fixes for large arrays. Neither changes
behaviour or memory use on any current configuration.
1/2 changes chunk_sectors and the stripe-cache count fields to unsigned
int, matching how they are used and avoiding implicit sign
extension in the cache shrinker's subtraction.
2/2 widens the badblocks sector parameters from int to sector_t so the
helpers do not narrow a sector_t argument on very large devices.
These are independent of the other md/raid5 patches I'm sending and can
be applied on their own.
Hiroshi Nishida (2):
md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int
md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t
drivers/md/md.c | 4 ++--
drivers/md/md.h | 10 +++++-----
drivers/md/raid5.c | 14 +++++++-------
drivers/md/raid5.h | 8 ++++----
4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
base-commit: 55b77337bdd088c77461588e5ec094421b89911b
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int 2026-07-10 13:23 [PATCH 0/2] md: widen size/count types for large arrays Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 13:23 ` Hiroshi Nishida 2026-07-10 15:44 ` sashiko-bot 2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t Hiroshi Nishida 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Song Liu, Yu Kuai Cc: Li Nan, Xiao Ni, linux-raid, linux-kernel, Hiroshi Nishida chunk_sectors, new_chunk_sectors, prev_chunk_sectors, max_nr_stripes, and min_nr_stripes are never negative. Using signed int is semantically wrong and prevents the compiler from optimizing division/modulo by power-of-two chunk sizes to right shifts in the hot I/O path. Change all struct fields and derived local variables to unsigned int: mddev->chunk_sectors mddev->new_chunk_sectors r5conf->chunk_sectors r5conf->prev_chunk_sectors r5conf->max_nr_stripes r5conf->min_nr_stripes Local: sectors_per_chunk, new_chunk, chunk_sectors The min() in r5c_check_cached_full_stripe() required both operands to match signedness; this is now satisfied with max_nr_stripes unsigned. Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Nishida <nishidafmly@gmail.com> --- drivers/md/md.h | 4 ++-- drivers/md/raid5.c | 14 +++++++------- drivers/md/raid5.h | 8 ++++---- 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h index d8daf0f75cbb..b9ad26844799 100644 --- a/drivers/md/md.h +++ b/drivers/md/md.h @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ struct mddev { int external; /* metadata is * managed externally */ char metadata_type[17]; /* externally set*/ - int chunk_sectors; + unsigned int chunk_sectors; time64_t ctime, utime; int level, layout; char clevel[16]; @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ struct mddev { */ sector_t reshape_position; int delta_disks, new_level, new_layout; - int new_chunk_sectors; + unsigned int new_chunk_sectors; int reshape_backwards; struct md_thread __rcu *thread; /* management thread */ diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c index 0c5c9fb0606e..28828e083c2b 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c @@ -2970,7 +2970,7 @@ sector_t raid5_compute_sector(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t r_sector, sector_t new_sector; int algorithm = previous ? conf->prev_algo : conf->algorithm; - int sectors_per_chunk = previous ? conf->prev_chunk_sectors + unsigned int sectors_per_chunk = previous ? conf->prev_chunk_sectors : conf->chunk_sectors; int raid_disks = previous ? conf->previous_raid_disks : conf->raid_disks; @@ -3166,7 +3166,7 @@ sector_t raid5_compute_blocknr(struct stripe_head *sh, int i, int previous) int raid_disks = sh->disks; int data_disks = raid_disks - conf->max_degraded; sector_t new_sector = sh->sector, check; - int sectors_per_chunk = previous ? conf->prev_chunk_sectors + unsigned int sectors_per_chunk = previous ? conf->prev_chunk_sectors : conf->chunk_sectors; int algorithm = previous ? conf->prev_algo : conf->algorithm; @@ -3584,7 +3584,7 @@ static void end_reshape(struct r5conf *conf); static void stripe_set_idx(sector_t stripe, struct r5conf *conf, int previous, struct stripe_head *sh) { - int sectors_per_chunk = + unsigned int sectors_per_chunk = previous ? conf->prev_chunk_sectors : conf->chunk_sectors; int dd_idx; int chunk_offset = sector_div(stripe, sectors_per_chunk); @@ -6103,7 +6103,7 @@ static enum stripe_result make_stripe_request(struct mddev *mddev, static sector_t raid5_bio_lowest_chunk_sector(struct r5conf *conf, struct bio *bi) { - int sectors_per_chunk = conf->chunk_sectors; + unsigned int sectors_per_chunk = conf->chunk_sectors; int raid_disks = conf->raid_disks; int dd_idx; struct stripe_head sh; @@ -7930,7 +7930,7 @@ static int raid5_run(struct mddev *mddev) sector_t here_new, here_old; int old_disks; int max_degraded = (mddev->level == 6 ? 2 : 1); - int chunk_sectors; + unsigned int chunk_sectors; int new_data_disks; if (journal_dev) { @@ -8832,7 +8832,7 @@ static int raid5_check_reshape(struct mddev *mddev) * to be used by a reshape pass. */ struct r5conf *conf = mddev->private; - int new_chunk = mddev->new_chunk_sectors; + unsigned int new_chunk = mddev->new_chunk_sectors; if (mddev->new_layout >= 0 && !algorithm_valid_raid5(mddev->new_layout)) return -EINVAL; @@ -8866,7 +8866,7 @@ static int raid5_check_reshape(struct mddev *mddev) static int raid6_check_reshape(struct mddev *mddev) { - int new_chunk = mddev->new_chunk_sectors; + unsigned int new_chunk = mddev->new_chunk_sectors; if (mddev->new_layout >= 0 && !algorithm_valid_raid6(mddev->new_layout)) return -EINVAL; diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h index cb5feae04db2..5cd9d0f36b6e 100644 --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h @@ -572,12 +572,12 @@ struct r5conf { /* only protect corresponding hash list and inactive_list */ spinlock_t hash_locks[NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS]; struct mddev *mddev; - int chunk_sectors; + unsigned int chunk_sectors; int level, algorithm, rmw_level; int max_degraded; int raid_disks; - int max_nr_stripes; - int min_nr_stripes; + unsigned int max_nr_stripes; + unsigned int min_nr_stripes; #if PAGE_SIZE != DEFAULT_STRIPE_SIZE unsigned long stripe_size; unsigned int stripe_shift; @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ struct r5conf { */ sector_t reshape_safe; int previous_raid_disks; - int prev_chunk_sectors; + unsigned int prev_chunk_sectors; int prev_algo; short generation; /* increments with every reshape */ seqcount_spinlock_t gen_lock; /* lock against generation changes */ -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int 2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 15:44 ` sashiko-bot 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-07-10 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hiroshi Nishida; +Cc: linux-raid, yukuai Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: New issues: - [Medium] Lockless read race on total_cached evaluates to a negative value, triggering unsigned promotion and false cache pressure signals. Pre-existing issues: - [Critical] The calculation of total sectors per chunk stripe (chunk size multiplied by data disks) is performed using 32-bit arithmetic, which can overflow. This leads to a divide-by-zero kernel panic or incorrect boundary math if a maliciously large chunk size is provided. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int --- commit 6fa5b599e890f5ca04407ab1005af1cc096d709e Author: Hiroshi Nishida <nishidafmly@gmail.com> md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int This commit changes various chunk and stripe counts from signed to unsigned int in the md/raid5 subsystem to prevent negative values. It allows the compiler to optimize division and modulo operations by power-of-two chunk sizes to right shifts in the hot I/O path. > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c > index 0c5c9fb0606ee..28828e083c2b3 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c [ ... ] > @@ -7929,7 +7929,7 @@ static int raid5_run(struct mddev *mddev) > sector_t here_new, here_old; > int old_disks; > int max_degraded = (mddev->level == 6 ? 2 : 1); > - int chunk_sectors; > + unsigned int chunk_sectors; > int new_data_disks; [Severity: Critical] This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but changing the types to unsigned int fails to resolve an underlying 32-bit wrapping regression. Does this code overflow when calculating total sectors per chunk stripe? In raid5_run(), if a maliciously crafted RAID superblock sets chunksize to 0x08000000 (64 GiB) and raid_disks to 33, the multiplication (chunk_sectors * new_data_disks) evaluates to 0x08000000 * 32. This wraps to 0 in 32-bit arithmetic, which is then passed to sector_div(): if (sector_div(here_new, chunk_sectors * new_data_disks)) { This triggers a divide-by-zero panic. A similar issue occurs in make_discard_request() where DIV_ROUND_UP_SECTOR_T() is called with a wrapped stripe_sectors value. > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h > index cb5feae04db27..5cd9d0f36b6e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h [ ... ] > @@ -572,12 +572,12 @@ struct r5conf { > /* only protect corresponding hash list and inactive_list */ > spinlock_t hash_locks[NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS]; > struct mddev *mddev; > - int chunk_sectors; > + unsigned int chunk_sectors; > int level, algorithm, rmw_level; > int max_degraded; > int raid_disks; > - int max_nr_stripes; > - int min_nr_stripes; > + unsigned int max_nr_stripes; > + unsigned int min_nr_stripes; [Severity: Medium] Does changing min_nr_stripes to unsigned int introduce a spurious cache flush regression due to type promotion? In drivers/md/raid5-cache.c:r5c_do_reclaim(), total_cached can evaluate to -1 if r5c_finish_stripe_write_out() concurrently decrements r5c_flushing_partial_stripes and r5c_cached_partial_stripes during a lockless read. Since min_nr_stripes is now unsigned, the -1 is promoted to UINT_MAX in this condition: if (total_cached > conf->min_nr_stripes * 3 / 4 || This makes the cache pressure check spuriously evaluate to true, leading to unnecessary CPU wakeups and a performance regression during writeback workloads. -- Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260710132329.7273-1-nishidafmly@gmail.com?part=1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t 2026-07-10 13:23 [PATCH 0/2] md: widen size/count types for large arrays Hiroshi Nishida 2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 13:23 ` Hiroshi Nishida 2026-07-10 13:40 ` sashiko-bot 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Song Liu, Yu Kuai Cc: Li Nan, Xiao Ni, linux-raid, linux-kernel, Hiroshi Nishida The badblocks core API -- badblocks_set(), badblocks_clear() and badblocks_check() -- and the is_badblock() helper all take the range length as sector_t. The md wrappers rdev_set_badblocks(), rdev_clear_badblocks() and rdev_has_badblock(), however, declared the same length as int, narrowing sector_t to int and back again in the middle of an otherwise 64-bit clean path. Change the sectors parameter to sector_t in these three wrappers so it matches the core API and is_badblock(). No functional change: current callers pass per-I/O or per-resync-chunk lengths well within int range. This just removes a gratuitous truncation point and keeps the type consistent end to end. Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Nishida <nishidafmly@gmail.com> --- drivers/md/md.c | 4 ++-- drivers/md/md.h | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c index d1465bcd86c8..61f40fa41e78 100644 --- a/drivers/md/md.c +++ b/drivers/md/md.c @@ -10553,7 +10553,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(md_finish_reshape); /* Bad block management */ /* Returns true on success, false on failure */ -bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, int sectors, +bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors, int is_new) { struct mddev *mddev = rdev->mddev; @@ -10593,7 +10593,7 @@ bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, int sectors, } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rdev_set_badblocks); -void rdev_clear_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, int sectors, +void rdev_clear_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors, int is_new) { if (is_new) diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h index b9ad26844799..95835a3286aa 100644 --- a/drivers/md/md.h +++ b/drivers/md/md.h @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ static inline int is_badblock(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors } static inline int rdev_has_badblock(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, - int sectors) + sector_t sectors) { sector_t first_bad; sector_t bad_sectors; @@ -319,9 +319,9 @@ static inline int rdev_has_badblock(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, return is_badblock(rdev, s, sectors, &first_bad, &bad_sectors); } -extern bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, int sectors, +extern bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors, int is_new); -extern void rdev_clear_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, int sectors, +extern void rdev_clear_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors, int is_new); struct md_cluster_info; struct md_cluster_operations; -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t 2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t Hiroshi Nishida @ 2026-07-10 13:40 ` sashiko-bot 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-07-10 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hiroshi Nishida; +Cc: linux-raid, yukuai Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] Arithmetic underflow in `is_badblock()` when a physical bad block overlaps `data_offset`. - [High] Discarded macro results in `block/badblocks.c` make block alignment a no-op. -- --- Patch [2]: [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t --- commit 19521e4f1c32c01e7a6122a185436691618d94c1 Author: Hiroshi Nishida <nishidafmly@gmail.com> md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t This commit changes the sectors parameter in md wrappers (rdev_set_badblocks, rdev_clear_badblocks, and rdev_has_badblock) from int to sector_t. This matches the core API and is_badblock() to prevent a truncation point. > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > index d1465bcd86c81..61f40fa41e781 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/md.c > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c [ ... ] > @@ -10553,7 +10553,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(md_finish_reshape); > /* Bad block management */ > > /* Returns true on success, false on failure */ > -bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, int sectors, > +bool rdev_set_badblocks(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors, > int is_new) > { [Severity: High] This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but since this code interacts with the core badblocks API, I noticed a pre-existing bug in how block alignment is handled in block/badblocks.c. In _badblocks_set(), the code attempts to align sectors: block/badblocks.c:_badblocks_set() { ... rounddown(s, 1 << bb->shift); roundup(next, 1 << bb->shift); sectors = next - s; ... } Similar logic exists in _badblocks_clear() and badblocks_check(). Because rounddown() and roundup() are macros that evaluate to the rounded value but do not modify their arguments in-place, aren't the alignment results being ignored here, leaving s and next unaligned? If bb->shift > 0, wouldn't this break bad block alignment, fragment the bad block table, and risk premature table exhaustion? [ ... ] > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h > index b9ad26844799d..95835a3286aac 100644 > --- a/drivers/md/md.h > +++ b/drivers/md/md.h [ ... ] > @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ static inline int is_badblock(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, sector_t sectors > } > > static inline int rdev_has_badblock(struct md_rdev *rdev, sector_t s, > - int sectors) > + sector_t sectors) > { > sector_t first_bad; [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but while reviewing the badblock sector types, I noticed a logic error in is_badblock() located just above this function. drivers/md/md.h:is_badblock() { ... int rv = badblocks_check(&rdev->badblocks, rdev->data_offset + s, sectors, first_bad, bad_sectors); if (rv) *first_bad -= rdev->data_offset; ... } If userspace tools (e.g., mdadm via sysfs bb_store) write a physical bad block that starts before rdev->data_offset but extends into the array's data area, badblocks_check() returns a *first_bad physical sector less than data_offset. Could the unconditional subtraction (*first_bad -= rdev->data_offset) underflow here? Would this create a massive false first_bad sector value, causing callers like raid1 to mistakenly issue I/O to a known bad sector? -- Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260710132329.7273-1-nishidafmly@gmail.com?part=2 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-07-10 15:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-07-10 13:23 [PATCH 0/2] md: widen size/count types for large arrays Hiroshi Nishida 2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int Hiroshi Nishida 2026-07-10 15:44 ` sashiko-bot 2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t Hiroshi Nishida 2026-07-10 13:40 ` sashiko-bot
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox