kernel/git/stable/linux.git/block/badblocks.c, branch linux-6.14.y

badblocks: Fix a nonsense WARN_ON() which checks whether a u64 variable < 0

2025-05-29T09:12:50+00:00

[ Upstream commit 7e76336e14de9a2b67af96012ddd46c5676cf340 ] In _badblocks_check(), there are lines of code like this, 1246 sectors -= len; [snipped] 1251 WARN_ON(sectors < 0); The WARN_ON() at line 1257 doesn't make sense because sectors is unsigned long long type and never to be <0. Fix it by checking directly checking whether sectors is less than len. Reported-by: Dan Carpenter Signed-off-by: Coly Li Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250309160556.42854-1-colyli@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: use sector_t instead of int to avoid truncation of badblocks length

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit d301f164c3fbff611bd71f57dfa553b9219f0f5e ] There is a truncation of badblocks length issue when set badblocks as follow: echo "2055 4294967299" > bad_blocks cat bad_blocks 2055 3 Change 'sectors' argument type from 'int' to 'sector_t'. This change avoids truncation of badblocks length for large sectors by replacing 'int' with 'sector_t' (u64), enabling proper handling of larger disk sizes and ensuring compatibility with 64-bit sector addressing. Fixes: 9e0e252a048b ("badblocks: Add core badblock management code") Signed-off-by: Zheng Qixing Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Acked-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-13-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: return boolean from badblocks_set() and badblocks_clear()

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit c8775aefba959cdfbaa25408a84d3dd15bbeb991 ] Change the return type of badblocks_set() and badblocks_clear() from int to bool, indicating success or failure. Specifically: - _badblocks_set() and _badblocks_clear() functions now return true for success and false for failure. - All calls to these functions are updated to handle the new boolean return type. - This change improves code clarity and ensures a more consistent handling of success and failure states. Signed-off-by: Zheng Qixing Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Acked-by: Coly Li Acked-by: Ira Weiny Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-11-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Stable-dep-of: d301f164c3fb ("badblocks: use sector_t instead of int to avoid truncation of badblocks length") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: fix missing bad blocks on retry in _badblocks_check()

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 5236f041fa6c81c71eabad44897e54a0d6d5bbf6 ] The bad blocks check would miss bad blocks when retrying under contention, as checking parameters are not reset. These stale values from the previous attempt could lead to incorrect scanning in the subsequent retry. Move seqlock to outer function and reinitialize checking state for each retry. This ensures a clean state for each check attempt, preventing any missed bad blocks. Fixes: 3ea3354cb9f0 ("badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling") Signed-off-by: Zheng Qixing Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Acked-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-10-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: fix merge issue when new badblocks align with pre+1

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 9ec65dec634a752ab0a1203510ee190356e4cf1a ] There is a merge issue when adding badblocks as follow: echo 0 10 > bad_blocks echo 30 10 > bad_blocks echo 20 10 > bad_blocks cat bad_blocks 0 10 20 10 //should be merged with (30 10) 30 10 In this case, if new badblocks does not intersect with prev, it is added by insert_at(). If there is an intersection with prev+1, the merge will be processed in the next re_insert loop. However, when the end of the new badblocks is exactly equal to the offset of prev+1, no further re_insert loop occurs, and the two badblocks are not merge. Fix it by inc prev, badblocks can be merged during the subsequent code. Fixes: aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code") Signed-off-by: Li Nan Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-9-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: fix the using of MAX_BADBLOCKS

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 37446680dfbfbba7cbedd680047182f70a0b857b ] The number of badblocks cannot exceed MAX_BADBLOCKS, but it should be allowed to equal MAX_BADBLOCKS. Fixes: aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code") Fixes: c3c6a86e9efc ("badblocks: add helper routines for badblock ranges handling") Signed-off-by: Li Nan Reviewed-by: Zhu Yanjun Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Acked-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-7-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: return error if any badblock set fails

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 7f500f0a59b1d7345a05ec4ae703babf34b7e470 ] _badblocks_set() returns success if at least one badblock is set successfully, even if others fail. This can lead to data inconsistencies in raid, where a failed badblock set should trigger the disk to be kicked out to prevent future reads from failed write areas. _badblocks_set() should return error if any badblock set fails. Instead of relying on 'rv', directly returning 'sectors' for clearer logic. If all badblocks are successfully set, 'sectors' will be 0, otherwise it indicates the number of badblocks that have not been set yet, thus signaling failure. By the way, it can also fix an issue: when a newly set unack badblock is included in an existing ack badblock, the setting will return an error. ··· echo "0 100" /sys/block/md0/md/dev-loop1/bad_blocks echo "0 100" /sys/block/md0/md/dev-loop1/unacknowledged_bad_blocks -bash: echo: write error: No space left on device ``` After fix, it will return success. Fixes: aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code") Signed-off-by: Li Nan Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Acked-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-6-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: return error directly when setting badblocks exceeds 512

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 28243dcd1f49cc8be398a1396d16a45527882ce5 ] In the current handling of badblocks settings, a lot of processing has been done for scenarios where the number of badblocks exceeds 512. This makes the code look quite complex and also introduces some issues, For example, if there is 512 badblocks already: for((i=0; i<510; i++)); do ((sector=i*2)); echo "$sector 1" > bad_blocks; done echo 2100 10 > bad_blocks echo 2200 10 > bad_blocks Set new one, exceed 512: echo 2000 500 > bad_blocks Expected: 2000 500 Actual: 2100 400 In fact, a disk shouldn't have too many badblocks, and for disks with 512 badblocks, attempting to set more bad blocks doesn't make much sense. At that point, the more appropriate action would be to replace the disk. Therefore, to resolve these issues and simplify the code somewhat, return error directly when setting badblocks exceeds 512. Fixes: aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code") Signed-off-by: Li Nan Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-5-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: attempt to merge adjacent badblocks during ack_all_badblocks

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 32e9ad4d11f69949ff331e35a417871ee0d31d99 ] If ack and unack badblocks are adjacent, they will not be merged and will remain as two separate badblocks. Even after the bad blocks are written to disk and both become ack, they will still remain as two independent bad blocks. This is not ideal as it wastes the limited space for badblocks. Therefore, during ack_all_badblocks(), attempt to merge badblocks if they are adjacent. Fixes: aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code") Signed-off-by: Li Nan Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Acked-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-4-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

badblocks: factor out a helper try_adjacent_combine

2025-04-10T12:44:06+00:00

[ Upstream commit 270b68fee9688428e0a98d4a2c3e6d4c434a84ba ] Factor out try_adjacent_combine(), and it will be used in the later patch. Signed-off-by: Li Nan Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250227075507.151331-3-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Stable-dep-of: 32e9ad4d11f6 ("badblocks: attempt to merge adjacent badblocks during ack_all_badblocks") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin