linux-kernel - Re: Warning when using eMMC and partprobe: generic_make_request: Trying to write to read-only block-device

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 10:26:51 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc:     stefan@...er.ch, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Warning when using eMMC and partprobe: generic_make_request:
 Trying to write to read-only block-device

On 8/14/18 10:24 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/14/18 10:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:24 AM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks like it's coming from that fsync():
>>>
>>>   sys_fsync
>>>     do_fsync
>>>       vfs_fsync_range
>>>         blkdev_fsync
>>>           blkdev_issue_flush
>>>
>>> I think we need to teach blkdev_issue_flush() to bail out if the bdev
>>> is read-only, similar to blkdev_issue_discard(), _write_zeroes(), etc.
>>> The question is which error code to use.  blkdev_fsync() already skips
>>> over EOPNOTSUPP, so it is a (no-so-good) option.  Other blkdev_issue_
>>> functions return EPERM.
>>
>> Oh, just make issue_flush() return EROFS for a read-only device.
>>
>> Or maybe we should even just consider the flush to be a read operation?
>>
>> But I guess the error code gets percolated all the way to user space?
>> The safest option might just be to return 0.
> 
> We probably just want to special case a flush for this check. In other
> situations, like resource allocation and issue, we'd want to consider
> it a write.

Ala:


diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index 12550340418d..29f8a60965bc 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -2162,7 +2163,9 @@ static inline bool should_fail_request(struct hd_struct *part,
 
 static inline bool bio_check_ro(struct bio *bio, struct hd_struct *part)
 {
-	if (part->policy && op_is_write(bio_op(bio))) {
+	const int op = bio_op(bio);
+
+	if (part->policy && (op_is_write(op) && !op_is_flush(op))) {
 		char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
 
 		WARN_ONCE(1,


-- 
Jens Axboe