Re: [PATCH] md: avoid modifying spares while the array is not suspended

[Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>]

Hi Kuai,

On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 00:16 +0800, yu kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2026/6/30 15:56, Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi 写道:
>> remove_spares() and remove_and_add_spares() modify the array's rdev
>> configuration. These operations are only safe after the array has been
>> suspended.
>>
>> Today, md_start_sync() can call md_choose_sync_action() even when the
>> array has not been suspended. As a result, md_choose_sync_action() may
>> remove or replace rdevs while normal I/O is still accessing them.
>>
>> The race can occur as follows:
>>
>> raid10d          Worker                      Normal IO
>> ____________     _______________________     ______________________
>>
>>                                               raid10_write_request()
>>                                               wait_blocked_dev()
>> set Blocked
>> set Faulty
>>                                               Skip Faulty rdev
>>                                               rrdev->nr_pending++
>>                                               .repl_bio = bio
>>                   removeable_rdev = false     .
>>                   array not suspended         .
>> lock mddev                                   goto err_handle
>>                   lock mddev (wait)
>>                   .
>> update sb        .
>> clear Blocked    .
>>                   .
>> unlock mddev     .
>>                   lock mddev (acquires)
>>                   remove_spares()
>>                   removeable_rdev = true
>>
>>                   raid10_remove_disk()
>>                   rdev = replacement
>>                   replacement = NULL
>>                                               rdev_dec_pending(NULL)
>>                   unlock mddev                (NULL)->nr_pending--
>>
>> In this case, rdev_dec_pending() is called with a NULL pointer,
>> resulting in a NULL pointer dereference when attempting to decrement
>> nr_pending.
>>
>> Fix this by ensuring that remove_spares() and remove_and_add_spares()
>> are only called after the array has been suspended, preventing
>> concurrent rdev configuration changes while normal I/O is in progress.
>>
>> Fixes: bc08041b32ab ("md: suspend array in md_start_sync() if array need reconfiguration")
>> Reported-by: sashiko-bot <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
>> Closes: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260628142420.1051027-1-abd.masalkhi@gmail.com?part=3
>> Signed-off-by: Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi <abd.masalkhi@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/md/md.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>> index 66a41d482e59..c85ebb59535b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>> @@ -10116,7 +10116,8 @@ static int remove_and_add_spares(struct mddev *mddev,
>>   	return spares;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static bool md_choose_sync_action(struct mddev *mddev, int *spares)
>> +static bool md_choose_sync_action(struct mddev *mddev, int *spares,
>> +				  bool array_suspended)
>>   {
>>   	/* Check if reshape is in progress first. */
>>   	if (mddev->reshape_position != MaxSector) {
>> @@ -10132,7 +10133,9 @@ static bool md_choose_sync_action(struct mddev *mddev, int *spares)
>>   
>>   	/* Check if resync is in progress. */
>>   	if (mddev->resync_offset < MaxSector) {
>> -		remove_spares(mddev, NULL);
>> +		if (array_suspended)
>> +			remove_spares(mddev, NULL);
>
> The problem looks real, however, I think this will cause a change that user will be awared,
> if there are really spares that can be removed from conf, but array is not suspended here,
> user will still expect rdev will be removed from conf automatically.
>
> In md_start_sync, if suspend is false, can we check again after mddev_lock? If suspend is
> supposed to be true, we can release the lock and retry with suspend = true.
>
Yes, I see, and your approach is much better. But what do you think
about taking the lock first and then checking only once?

>> +
>>   		set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_SYNC, &mddev->recovery);
>>   		clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RECOVER, &mddev->recovery);
>>   		clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_LAZY_RECOVER, &mddev->recovery);
>> @@ -10144,7 +10147,11 @@ static bool md_choose_sync_action(struct mddev *mddev, int *spares)
>>   	 * also removed and re-added, to allow the personality to fail the
>>   	 * re-add.
>>   	 */
>> -	*spares = remove_and_add_spares(mddev, NULL);
>> +	if (array_suspended)
>> +		*spares = remove_and_add_spares(mddev, NULL);
>> +	else
>> +		*spares = 0;
>> +
>>   	if (*spares || test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_LAZY_RECOVER, &mddev->recovery)) {
>>   		clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_SYNC, &mddev->recovery);
>>   		clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_CHECK, &mddev->recovery);
>> @@ -10189,11 +10196,12 @@ static void md_start_sync(struct work_struct *ws)
>>   		 * As we only add devices that are already in-sync, we can
>>   		 * activate the spares immediately.
>>   		 */
>> -		remove_and_add_spares(mddev, NULL);
>> +		if (suspend)
>> +			remove_and_add_spares(mddev, NULL);
>>   		goto not_running;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	if (!md_choose_sync_action(mddev, &spares))
>> +	if (!md_choose_sync_action(mddev, &spares, suspend))
>>   		goto not_running;
>>   
>>   	if (!mddev->pers->sync_request)
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Kuai

-- 
Best Regards,
Abd-Alrhman