From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Edward Adam Davis" <eadavis@sina.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, yukuai@fygo.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/raid1: prevent a race between write and stop request
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 10:55:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260828105545.162E71F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260828103957.245658-1-eadavis@sina.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 5 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [Critical] Using an interruptible mutex in the I/O path causes normal user-space signals to spuriously fail legitimate writes with I/O errors.
- [High] Global lock acquisition in the high-frequency block I/O fast path completely serializes all RAID1 write requests.
- [High] Acquiring `reconfig_mutex` in the block I/O submission path causes a fatal lock-inversion deadlock during memory reclaim.
- [High] Holding `reconfig_mutex` while sleeping in `wait_blocked_rdev()` indefinitely blocks the MD management thread from clearing the blocked state.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The patch only protects WRITE requests, leaving the READ path entirely unpatched and vulnerable to the original race condition causing a NULL pointer dereference.
--
commit 75f3c8447cce610e8b9e2c583ca2b414877078df
Author: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@sina.com>
md/raid1: prevent a race between write and stop request
This commit attempts to fix a race condition between write and stop requests
that leads to a null pointer dereference. It introduces synchronization in
the write path using the mddev lock to ensure the consistent state of mddev
members during a write request.
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3fe892ea5fc292e1353f
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> index f0646fb24371f..3b9f1fa65e654 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -1692,11 +1693,36 @@ static bool raid1_make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
> if (bio_data_dir(bio) == READ)
> raid1_read_request(mddev, bio, sectors, NULL);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but it appears the read path is still
unprotected and vulnerable to the same race condition.
Since the patch only wraps the write path, if a concurrent do_md_stop() runs
while a READ request is processed, raid1_read_request() will fetch
mddev->private without protection. Could this result in the exact same null
pointer dereference crash on reads when wait_read_barrier() is called?
> else {
> + int err;
> +
> md_write_start(mddev, bio);
> - if (!raid1_write_request(mddev, bio, sectors))
> + err = mddev_lock(mddev);
[Severity: High]
By acquiring mddev_lock() (which takes the global reconfig_mutex) in the
hot I/O submission path, are all RAID1 write requests completely serialized?
Taking a global reconfiguration mutex on every single write request could
degrade array scalability and I/O concurrency.
[Severity: High]
Could acquiring reconfig_mutex in the block I/O submission path also cause
a lock-inversion deadlock during memory reclaim?
If a thread holds reconfig_mutex (for example, during md_import_device())
and performs a GFP_KERNEL allocation, direct reclaim could write dirty pages
to the RAID array. Since raid1_make_request() attempts to acquire
reconfig_mutex via mddev_lock(), this might cause a direct self-deadlock.
> +
> + if (err < 0) {
> + md_write_end(mddev);
> + status = BLK_STS_IOERR;
> + goto done;
> + }
[Severity: Critical]
By translating a failed interruptible mutex lock into BLK_STS_IOERR, could
normal user-space signals spuriously fail legitimate writes?
mddev_lock() uses mutex_lock_interruptible(), which returns -EINTR if a
signal is pending. If a userspace process performing I/O receives a benign
signal (like SIGALRM) while submitting a write, this path seems to fail the
write with an I/O error instead of transparently retrying or blocking.
> +
> + if (!mddev->private) {
> + mddev_unlock(mddev);
> + md_write_end(mddev);
> + status = BLK_STS_OFFLINE;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + err = raid1_write_request(mddev, bio, sectors);
> + mddev_unlock(mddev);
[Severity: High]
Since reconfig_mutex is held across the entirety of raid1_write_request(),
could this block the MD management thread indefinitely?
If a write request encounters a blocked device and sleeps in
wait_blocked_rdev() inside raid1_write_request(), the I/O thread will be
holding reconfig_mutex. The MD management thread (md_check_recovery()) needs
to clear the blocked state, but it uses mddev_trylock() to acquire
reconfig_mutex. Since the I/O thread holds the lock, the management thread
will fail to acquire it, potentially leaving the I/O thread blocked forever.
> +
> + if (!err)
> md_write_end(mddev);
> }
> +out:
> return true;
> +done:
> + bio->bi_status = status;
> + bio_endio(bio);
> + goto out;
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260828103957.245658-1-eadavis@sina.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-28 10:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <6a908777.1d9ded08.62e62.00da.GAE@google.com>
2026-08-28 10:39 ` [PATCH] md/raid1: prevent a race between write and stop request Edward Adam Davis
2026-08-28 10:49 ` [PATCH v2] " Edward Adam Davis
2026-08-28 11:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-28 10:55 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-28 14:27 ` [PATCH] " 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=20260828105545.162E71F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=eadavis@sina.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