4.18-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Xiao Ni <x...@redhat.com>

[ Upstream commit 1d0ffd264204eba1861865560f1f7f7a92919384 ]

In raid10 reshape_request it gets max_sectors in read_balance. If the 
underlayer disks
have bad blocks, the max_sectors is less than last. It will call goto read_more 
many
times. It calls raise_barrier(conf, sectors_done != 0) every time. In this 
condition
sectors_done is not 0. So the value passed to the argument force of 
raise_barrier is
true.

In raise_barrier it checks conf->barrier when force is true. If force is true 
and
conf->barrier is 0, it panic. In this case reshape_request submits bio to under 
layer
disks. And in the callback function of the bio it calls lower_barrier. If the 
bio
finishes before calling raise_barrier again, it can trigger the BUG_ON.

Add one pair of raise_barrier/lower_barrier to fix this bug.

Signed-off-by: Xiao Ni <x...@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Neil Brown <ne...@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <s...@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/md/raid10.c |    5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
@@ -4531,11 +4531,12 @@ static sector_t reshape_request(struct m
                allow_barrier(conf);
        }
 
+       raise_barrier(conf, 0);
 read_more:
        /* Now schedule reads for blocks from sector_nr to last */
        r10_bio = raid10_alloc_init_r10buf(conf);
        r10_bio->state = 0;
-       raise_barrier(conf, sectors_done != 0);
+       raise_barrier(conf, 1);
        atomic_set(&r10_bio->remaining, 0);
        r10_bio->mddev = mddev;
        r10_bio->sector = sector_nr;
@@ -4631,6 +4632,8 @@ read_more:
        if (sector_nr <= last)
                goto read_more;
 
+       lower_barrier(conf);
+
        /* Now that we have done the whole section we can
         * update reshape_progress
         */


Reply via email to