From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com (mail-wr1-f53.google.com [209.85.221.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C148438D402 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 09:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780304613; cv=none; b=kZLtuKdNGTRDN18EXup4vxhO/dHws3B6gprsbK6NaKoOfFvkeSshSxIbZE1MAR0opGYgDMflXflQm8z9cPf53ZOUm1tYjpeC8yoKM+DgNAj6wcwCwcrP1BJpGWhC/0x+Y9sFs7+tnV89tE33UPl4vkubTN3e6H5ay8lQhaElwoM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780304613; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vD7+fS4n6xxyWC+h2kpZsaWcAegfna/Ovaba2MnAGGs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JlQS7eKsNMoPGOEIrxkUBnj+nHcV4rH/HfFCdHWfI1Mj6C6Y9psL+D1ildYxuZcY7DvRP9D2RtdGp2PcaBd8z0DgziIy6I1r2YzW0NI9i/+8hTgUgVFtpqAC+NNnekLgkFczzLKZJd0nFzUd/V6bzyKoYtOgVLZvl9VWrW8/obo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=okI4E1WV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="okI4E1WV" Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-45efa80e0afso1216395f8f.2 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 02:03:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1780304610; x=1780909410; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FCD2fd71JEkzJVC0PFR3+O4hOvwrepEdxpDr+tJYldg=; b=okI4E1WVz72DCN4fK0BEVPy3+YPcZfMW2tiMhmsekV/fc9Xg8M2mned0wZQsSOtngS tg1nzhI0TXw1JrP2MC7BT0tJcPt1Sz9mMz3np2PA8dtiwq4+kpOYVJU6tUS3r/WGYmQW +lSNpTQQ0VW2m0wkrMxz7+sz+v4QL2P3zGzTUcnvQJXfW11fmdz2O88XCaXiIaeoWVnT 5ht6v86Jx6KfbST4LfOss+HD5K94Y7Zl/zTq14gMsiQlOY454devStPCQwksZsji3FUz pQ1PDVfN9IHgZXw4JunVd+hcKQfjoYYRwnCpYPdeaQzdgm52T09KVhv804U1RCqZWldK Z9lA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780304610; x=1780909410; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=FCD2fd71JEkzJVC0PFR3+O4hOvwrepEdxpDr+tJYldg=; b=PUwFBNT2+9IjnwMxjGtXwZ/xyvnaRLigtty+ZPsUPP6KeBsJQPO8fVuKd0YZ5bz+WF 2yyp5zIkn5epXLPqbGdzZNAqiakB5T71NRc4fb2TWVW8uaqNtz7ceze45AkRAXRYpmDu EuycZJISU3m0XXmci/bWxpJNrSfOoT2MYhOvQVm8vXhJ1AACrpRzPv0DKO32j+tzJj9f VaCZvtxiPjbRwXOSxtGZQAcq1rVdqWvbZP26vXS81Foi52hPgElBGo52g9gwOhSRCS2r 3148kFOgdmbnD8fT/UIJ28N2YEiRuFI/+UDWiZqIclkFsnclYhbSRMGkqDhWoTwYdjIk 2vrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzuP7asT6dEU9qQHcH8GYKximUtxHuNgAhnacaZo6A7yWmtGS0V zjVOwroR+78ulZ+g9mVyI2GbzT7fRdy1aGtkJNebRoGMmhEssOLWM+dv X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OFuwRMlG76UH2olzI7A23gy7zFf7BWbS2cf+SCVgOCUUkd7J7dMVLOqGB3h94x HdopkPffCObVfk6vR0HdcjtecUMqgusgFcwkFdDnN4x31tCaVlT3mkQEDpzVvSjy9G/vRXoCjk+ NloBtIrdbsXGK1W2lj0ecrpWAATGu1RO9Pb3Xy7O+tj/EJzTR3Wwyq1H5RU3t3p6w7SJQw5JMNl xY0whAg6ew23hgM5x6YwwtweLq4msClc9v1lcGAQuv1fjJi7YCuZIuAyvOCALV6IbxtwmnGYnA3 PhvwMdZZ4+4yVVeiYERVPv9ZJQrin/p7Er6yZrGgyhh3kIINA6eIDDS5m3Ij9o3So6DjylINqHu 5Le+UcbhPYpShcej7E0XExeagmOfAbLqnMiVW2Iigl9mQ/lDRzelP5TFtiH4J6O3mVQQjXYXaHy s7e7u+ED6IlOLcRVMTFm58AySnq1/u+c1DVX4f8kcvyhBlsnx4X4Jk9FYYhNG18Xm83xeH026/M 8VuHCZ4uqFNnA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:40cd:b0:439:c18f:5aaf with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-45ef6b96607mr17259268f8f.34.1780304609702; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 02:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Abds-MacBook-Air.local ([2a02:3037:60b:2e65:8d3:ed5d:6174:8946]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-45ef356b129sm29754388f8f.32.2026.06.01.02.03.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 02:03:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi To: John Garry , song@kernel.org, yukuai@fnnas.com, linan122@huawei.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, axboe@kernel.dk Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid1: fix nr_pending leak in REQ_ATOMIC bad-block error path In-Reply-To: References: <20260530151411.4119-1-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 11:03:25 +0200 Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain hi, Thank you for the feedback. On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:43 +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 30/05/2026 16:14, Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi wrote: >> In raid1_write_request(), each per-mirror loop iteration begins by >> incrementing rdev->nr_pending. If a REQ_ATOMIC write encounters a >> badblock within the requested range, the code jumps to err_handle >> without dropping the reference taken for the current mirror. >> >> err_handle's cleanup loop will only decrements for k < i and >> r1_bio->bios[k] is non-NULL. The current slot is therefore skipped, >> leaving its nr_pending reference leaked permanently. The reference >> prevents the rdev from ever being removed, since raid1_remove_conf() >> refuses to remove an rdev with nr_pending > 0. >> >> Fix this by calling rdev_dec_pending() before jumping to err_handle. >> >> Fixes: f2a38abf5f1c ("md/raid1: Atomic write support") >> Signed-off-by: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi > > FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: John Garry > >> --- >> drivers/md/raid1.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c >> index 181400e147c0..0084bbc24076 100644 >> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c >> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c >> @@ -1580,8 +1580,10 @@ static void raid1_write_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio, >> * complexity of supporting that is not worth >> * the benefit. >> */ >> - if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_ATOMIC) >> + if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_ATOMIC) { >> + rdev_dec_pending(rdev, mddev); > > It's not so nice that we have 2x locations that does the > rdev_dec_pending work > Are you suggesting deferring atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending) until after the if (test_bit(WriteErrorSeen, &rdev->flags)) {..} block? The patch is already in md-7.2; should I send a separate cleanup patch? >> goto err_handle; >> + } >> >> good_sectors = first_bad - r1_bio->sector; >> if (good_sectors < max_sectors) > -- Best Regards, Abd-Alrhman