| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20080319131106.61d7fa0c.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:11:06 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v4] Modify loop device to be able to manage partitions
of the disk image
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:36:07 +0100 Laurent Vivier wrote:
> This patch allows to use loop device with partitionned disk image.
>
> Original behavior of loop is not modified.
>
> A new parameter is introduced to define how many partition we want to be
> able to manage per loop device. This parameter is "max_part".
What happened to the update to Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
that was in v3?
> For instance, to manage 63 partitions / loop device, we will do:
> # modprobe loop max_part=63
> # ls -l /dev/loop?*
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 0 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop0
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 64 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop1
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 128 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop2
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 192 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop3
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 256 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop4
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 320 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop5
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 384 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop6
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 448 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop7
>
> And to attach a raw partitionned disk image, the original losetup is used:
>
> # losetup -f etch.img
> # ls -l /dev/loop?*
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 0 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop0
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 1 2008-03-05 14:57 /dev/loop0p1
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 2 2008-03-05 14:57 /dev/loop0p2
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 5 2008-03-05 14:57 /dev/loop0p5
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 64 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop1
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 128 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop2
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 192 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop3
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 256 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop4
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 320 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop5
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 384 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop6
> brw-rw---- 1 root disk 7, 448 2008-03-05 14:55 /dev/loop7
> # mount /dev/loop0p1 /mnt
> # ls /mnt
> bench cdrom home lib mnt root srv usr
> bin dev initrd lost+found opt sbin sys var
> boot etc initrd.img media proc selinux tmp vmlinuz
> # umount /mnt
> # losetup -d /dev/loop0
>
> Of course, the same behavior can be done using kpartx on a loop device,
> but modifying loop avoids to stack several layers of block device (loop +
> device mapper), this is a very light modification (40% of modifications
> are to manage the new parameter).
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
> ---
> drivers/block/loop.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 91ebb00..f7f1635 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -82,6 +82,9 @@
> static LIST_HEAD(loop_devices);
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(loop_devices_mutex);
>
> +static int max_part;
> +static int part_shift;
> +
> /*
> * Transfer functions
> */
> @@ -692,6 +695,8 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct file *lo_file,
> goto out_putf;
>
> fput(old_file);
> + if (max_part > 0)
> + ioctl_by_bdev(bdev, BLKRRPART, 0);
> return 0;
>
> out_putf:
> @@ -819,6 +824,8 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct file *lo_file,
> }
> lo->lo_state = Lo_bound;
> wake_up_process(lo->lo_thread);
> + if (max_part > 0)
> + ioctl_by_bdev(bdev, BLKRRPART, 0);
> return 0;
>
> out_clr:
> @@ -919,6 +926,8 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev)
> fput(filp);
> /* This is safe: open() is still holding a reference. */
> module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> + if (max_part > 0)
> + ioctl_by_bdev(bdev, BLKRRPART, 0);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1360,6 +1369,8 @@ static struct block_device_operations lo_fops = {
> static int max_loop;
> module_param(max_loop, int, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_loop, "Maximum number of loop devices");
> +module_param(max_part, int, 0);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_part, "Maximum number of partitions per loop device");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> MODULE_ALIAS_BLOCKDEV_MAJOR(LOOP_MAJOR);
>
> @@ -1412,7 +1423,7 @@ static struct loop_device *loop_alloc(int i)
> if (!lo->lo_queue)
> goto out_free_dev;
>
> - disk = lo->lo_disk = alloc_disk(1);
> + disk = lo->lo_disk = alloc_disk(1 << part_shift);
> if (!disk)
> goto out_free_queue;
>
> @@ -1422,7 +1433,7 @@ static struct loop_device *loop_alloc(int i)
> init_waitqueue_head(&lo->lo_event);
> spin_lock_init(&lo->lo_lock);
> disk->major = LOOP_MAJOR;
> - disk->first_minor = i;
> + disk->first_minor = i << part_shift;
> disk->fops = &lo_fops;
> disk->private_data = lo;
> disk->queue = lo->lo_queue;
> @@ -1502,7 +1513,12 @@ static int __init loop_init(void)
> * themselves and have kernel automatically instantiate actual
> * device on-demand.
> */
> - if (max_loop > 1UL << MINORBITS)
> +
> + part_shift = 0;
> + if (max_part > 0)
> + part_shift = fls(max_part);
> +
> + if (max_loop > 1UL << (MINORBITS - part_shift))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (max_loop) {
> @@ -1510,7 +1526,7 @@ static int __init loop_init(void)
> range = max_loop;
> } else {
> nr = 8;
> - range = 1UL << MINORBITS;
> + range = 1UL << (MINORBITS - part_shift);
> }
>
> if (register_blkdev(LOOP_MAJOR, "loop"))
> @@ -1549,7 +1565,7 @@ static void __exit loop_exit(void)
> unsigned long range;
> struct loop_device *lo, *next;
>
> - range = max_loop ? max_loop : 1UL << MINORBITS;
> + range = max_loop ? max_loop : 1UL << (MINORBITS - part_shift);
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(lo, next, &loop_devices, lo_list)
> loop_del_one(lo);
> --
---
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists