| 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: <5449C870.7060509@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:33:04 +0800
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@...wei.com>
To: Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@...eaurora.org>
CC: <dedekind1@...il.com>, <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
"Richard Weinberger" <richard@....at>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Brian Norris" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities
Hi Tanya,
When I was trying to push this patch to my product, I reviewed this patch
and found some small problems. I wish it's not too late to report these.
The patch I get from linux-ubifs.git is amended a bit by Artem. I'd like to
quote your V5 patch for simplification. Some line numbers may mismatching.
> @@ -1408,20 +1416,20 @@ static int __init ubi_mtd_param_parse(const char *val, struct kernel_param *kp)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (mtd_devs == UBI_MAX_DEVICES) {
> - ubi_err("too many parameters, max. is %d\n",
> + pr_err("UBI error: too many parameters, max. is %d\n",
> UBI_MAX_DEVICES);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> len = strnlen(val, MTD_PARAM_LEN_MAX);
> if (len == MTD_PARAM_LEN_MAX) {
> - ubi_err("parameter \"%s\" is too long, max. is %d\n",
> + pr_err("UBI error: parameter \"%s\" is too long, max. is %d\n",
> val, MTD_PARAM_LEN_MAX);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> if (len == 0) {
> - pr_warn("UBI warning: empty 'mtd=' parameter - ignored\n");
> + pr_err("UBI warning: empty 'mtd=' parameter - ignored\n");
> return 0;
> }
Why the last 'pr_warn()' need to be changed into 'pr_err()'? I looked up your
V1 and V2 patches, I think it's not your purpose.
> @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ static int add_corrupted(struct ubi_attach_info *ai, int pnum, int ec)
>
> /**
> * validate_vid_hdr - check volume identifier header.
> + * @ubi: UBI device description object
> * @vid_hdr: the volume identifier header to check
> * @av: information about the volume this logical eraseblock belongs to
> * @pnum: physical eraseblock number the VID header came from
> @@ -48,13 +48,14 @@
>
> /**
> * get_exclusive - get exclusive access to an UBI volume.
> + * @ubi: UBI device description object
> * @desc: volume descriptor
> *
> * This function changes UBI volume open mode to "exclusive". Returns previous
> * mode value (positive integer) in case of success and a negative error code
> * in case of failure.
> */
> @@ -660,13 +660,14 @@ static int init_volumes(struct ubi_device *ubi,
>
> /**
> * check_av - check volume attaching information.
> + * @ubi: UBI device description object
> * @vol: UBI volume description object
> * @av: volume attaching information
> *
> * This function returns zero if the volume attaching information is consistent
> * to the data read from the volume tabla, and %-EINVAL if not.
> */
> -static int check_av(const struct ubi_volume *vol,
> +static int check_av(const struct ubi_device *ubi, const struct ubi_volume *vol,
> const struct ubi_ainf_volume *av)
> {
> int err;
This patch add 'struct ubi_device *' for 3 functions. We can get 'ubi_device' from
'ubi_volume'. So I think it's because when we call these functions, the '->ubi'
pointer of 'ubi_volume' is not initialized, am I right? This patch use 'vol->ubi'
to indicate a 'struct ubi_device *' pointer in some places, I think you are sure
of using them.
> @@ -1010,28 +1015,28 @@ int ubi_attach_mtd_dev(struct mtd_info *mtd, int ubi_num,
> ubi->bgt_thread = kthread_create(ubi_thread, ubi, "%s", ubi->bgt_name);
> if (IS_ERR(ubi->bgt_thread)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(ubi->bgt_thread);
> - ubi_err("cannot spawn \"%s\", error %d", ubi->bgt_name,
> - err);
> + ubi_err(ubi, "cannot spawn \"%s\", error %d",
> + ubi->bgt_name, err);
> goto out_debugfs;
> }
>
> - ubi_msg("attached mtd%d (name \"%s\", size %llu MiB) to ubi%d",
> - mtd->index, mtd->name, ubi->flash_size >> 20, ubi_num);
> - ubi_msg("PEB size: %d bytes (%d KiB), LEB size: %d bytes",
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "attached mtd%d (name \"%s\", size %llu MiB)",
> + mtd->index, mtd->name, ubi->flash_size >> 20);
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "PEB size: %d bytes (%d KiB), LEB size: %d bytes",
> ubi->peb_size, ubi->peb_size >> 10, ubi->leb_size);
We have the parameter 'ubi_num' for log in some functions like 'ubi_attach_mtd_dev'
before. This patch remove 'ubi_num' in upper changes but keep it in other changes.
Do we have a discussed rule to deal with this situation? It's not a big problem~
> @@ -1798,15 +1803,18 @@ int ubi_thread(void *u)
> int failures = 0;
> struct ubi_device *ubi = u;
>
> - ubi_msg("background thread \"%s\" started, PID %d",
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" started, PID %d",
> ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current));
>
> set_freezable();
> for (;;) {
> int err;
>
> - if (kthread_should_stop())
> + if (kthread_should_stop()) {
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should stop, PID %d",
> + ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current));
> break;
> + }
>
> if (try_to_freeze())
> continue;
> @@ -1798,15 +1803,18 @@ int ubi_thread(void *u)
> int failures = 0;
> struct ubi_device *ubi = u;
>
> - ubi_msg("background thread \"%s\" started, PID %d",
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" started, PID %d",
> ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current));
>
> set_freezable();
> for (;;) {
> int err;
>
> - if (kthread_should_stop())
> + if (kthread_should_stop()) {
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "background thread \"%s\" should stop, PID %d",
> + ubi->bgt_name, task_pid_nr(current));
> break;
> + }
>
> if (try_to_freeze())
> continue;
Here are two new adding messages. Maybe a separate patch is better? Just a
suggestion.
> @@ -1415,8 +1418,9 @@ int ubi_self_check_all_ff(struct ubi_device *ubi, int pnum, int offset, int len)
> return 0;
>
> fail:
> - ubi_err("self-check failed for PEB %d", pnum);
> - ubi_msg("hex dump of the %d-%d region", offset, offset + len);
> + ubi_err(ubi, "self-check failed for PEB %d", pnum);
> + ubi_msg(ubi, "hex dump of the %d-%d region",
> + offset, offset + len);
> print_hex_dump(KERN_DEBUG, "", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET, 32, 1, buf, len, 1);
> err = -EINVAL;
> error:
Artem, I know you have tried to align the message code in different lines, maybe
you can check if you lose this one.
Thanks~!
Hu
--
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