From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Gowtham S Bhushan" <gowtham398gs@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, yukuai@fygo.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/raid1: Prevent excessively large memory allocations
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:39:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-188067@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261028152755.383821-1-gowtham398gs@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] md/raid1: incorrect allocation size calculation in setup_conf()
--
commit c8cc718382c763b1d6426dcf4d4968c6557c8e89
Author: Gowtham S Bhushan <gowtham398gs@gmail.com>
md/raid1: Prevent excessively large memory allocations
This commit adds a bounds check on mddev->raid_disks in setup_conf() to
prevent integer overflow and allocations exceeding KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> index 894efb50c6d58..8ed871792bf48 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -3020,6 +3020,16 @@ static struct r1conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev)
> struct md_rdev *rdev;
> size_t r1bio_size;
> int err = -ENOMEM;
> + size_t calculated_size;
> +
> + /* prevent baseline integer wrap-around anomalies first*/
> + /* Safely calculate size; overflows automatically saturate to SIZE_MAX */
> +
> + calculated_size = size_add(sizeof(struct r1conf),
> + size_mul(mddev->raid_disks, sizeof(struct r1bio)));
> +
> + if (mddev->raid_disks <= 0 || calculated_size >= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
[Severity: Medium]
Does calculated_size match the actual allocations in drivers/md/raid1.c that
scale with mddev->raid_disks?
struct r1conf is a fixed-size structure with no flexible array member, and
struct r1bio is not allocated as an array of mddev->raid_disks elements. The
per-disk allocations are:
drivers/md/raid1.c:setup_conf() {
...
conf->mirrors = kzalloc(array3_size(sizeof(struct raid1_info),
mddev->raid_disks, 2),
GFP_KERNEL);
...
r1bio_size = offsetof(struct r1bio, bios[mddev->raid_disks * 2]);
conf->r1bio_pool = mempool_create_kmalloc_pool(NR_RAID_BIOS, r1bio_size);
...
}
and during resync initialization via raid1_sync_request() -> init_resync() ->
mempool_init() -> r1buf_pool_alloc():
drivers/md/raid1.c:r1buf_pool_alloc() {
...
rps = kmalloc_objs(struct resync_pages, conf->raid_disks * 2, gfp_flags);
...
}
Because calculated_size only checks mddev->raid_disks * sizeof(struct r1bio),
several allocations can still exceed KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE and trigger the
WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE, flags) warning in mm/slub.c:
1. On 64-bit systems with 4KB pages, sizeof(struct r1bio) is 80 bytes while
2 * sizeof(struct resync_pages) is 272 bytes per disk. A raid_disks value
such as 20,000 passes setup_conf() (~1.6 MB) and then requests ~5.44 MB in
r1buf_pool_alloc(), exceeding a 4 MB KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.
2. On 32-bit systems, sizeof(struct r1bio) is 48 bytes while
2 * sizeof(struct raid1_info) is 56 or 64 bytes per disk. A raid_disks
value such as 70,000 or 80,000 passes calculated_size < KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE
and then exceeds a 4 MB KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE when allocating conf->mirrors in
setup_conf().
Also, since mddev->raid_disks is a signed int, calling
size_mul(mddev->raid_disks, ...) before checking mddev->raid_disks <= 0
implicitly converts negative values to a large size_t first.
Could mddev->raid_disks <= 0 be checked first, and the upper bound be
validated against the actual allocation sizes (or a reasonable maximum device
count)?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261028152755.383821-1-gowtham398gs@gmail.com?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-28 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-28 15:27 [PATCH] md/raid1: Prevent excessively large memory allocations Gowtham S Bhushan
2026-10-28 15:39 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=sashiko-outbox-188067@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=gowtham398gs@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