linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] md/raid1,raid10: Fix missing retries Failfast write bios on no-bbl rdevs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cbce67bc-74c6-0c99-fdba-48cd8aa27dda@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 09:28:52 +0800
From: Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
To: Kenta Akagi <k@...l.me>, linan666@...weicloud.com, song@...nel.org,
 yukuai3@...wei.com, mtkaczyk@...nel.org, shli@...com, jgq516@...il.com
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] md/raid1,raid10: Fix missing retries Failfast
 write bios on no-bbl rdevs



在 2025/9/19 0:23, Kenta Akagi 写道:
> 
> 
> On 2025/09/18 15:58, Li Nan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2025/9/17 21:33, Kenta Akagi 写道:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2025/09/17 19:06, Li Nan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2025/9/15 11:42, Kenta Akagi 写道:
>>>>> In the current implementation, write failures are not retried on rdevs
>>>>> with badblocks disabled. This is because narrow_write_error, which issues
>>>>> retry bios, immediately returns when badblocks are disabled. As a result,
>>>>> a single write failure on such an rdev will immediately mark it as Faulty.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMO, there's no need to add extra logic for scenarios where badblocks
>>>> is not enabled. Do you have real-world scenarios where badblocks is
>>>> disabled?
>>>
>>> No, badblocks are enabled in my environment.
>>> I'm fine if it's not added, but I still think it's worth adding WARN_ON like:
>>>
>>> @@ -2553,13 +2554,17 @@ static bool narrow_write_error(struct r1bio *r1_bio, int i)
>>>     fail = true;
>>> + WARN_ON( (bio->bi_opf & MD_FAILFAST) && (rdev->badblocks.shift < 0) );
>>>     if (!narrow_write_error(r1_bio, m))
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
>> @@ -2522,10 +2522,11 @@ static bool narrow_write_error(struct r1bio *r1_bio, int i)
>>          bool ok = true;
>>
>>          if (rdev->badblocks.shift < 0)
>> -               return false;
>> +               block_sectors = bdev_logical_block_size(rdev->bdev) >> 9;
>> +       else
>> +               block_sectors = roundup(1 << rdev->badblocks.shift,
>> +                                       bdev_logical_block_size(rdev->bdev) >> 9);
>>
>> -       block_sectors = roundup(1 << rdev->badblocks.shift,
>> -                               bdev_logical_block_size(rdev->bdev) >> 9);
>>          sector = r1_bio->sector;
>>          sectors = ((sector + block_sectors)
>>                     & ~(sector_t)(block_sectors - 1))
>>
>> rdev_set_badblocks() checks shift, too. rdev is marked to Faulty if setting
>> badblocks fails.
> 
> Sounds good. If badblocks are disabled, rdev_set_badblocks() returns false, so there
> should be no problem.
> 
> Can this be included in the cleanup?
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-raid/20250917093508.456790-3-linan666@huaweicloud.com/T/#u
> 
> or should I resend this patch as proposed?

Yes, please resend. I will rewrite my patch.

-- 
Thanks,
Nan