| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:43:30 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dedekind1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:09:23 +0200
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Am 12.04.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Boris Brezillon:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 14:13:17 +0200
> > Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch implements bitrot checking for UBI.
> >> ubi_wl_trigger_bitrot_check() triggers a re-read of every
> >> PEB. If a bitflip is detected PEBs in use will get scrubbed
> >> and free ones erased.
> >
> > As you'll see, I didn't have much to say about the 'UBI bitrot
> > detection' mechanism, so this review is a collection of
> > nitpicks :-).
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c | 39 +++++++++++++
> >> drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h | 4 ++
> >> drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c | 146 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 189 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
> >> index 9690cf9..f58330b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
> >> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ static struct class_attribute ubi_version =
> >>
> >> static ssize_t dev_attribute_show(struct device *dev,
> >> struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf);
> >> +static ssize_t trigger_bitrot_check(struct device *dev,
> >> + struct device_attribute *mattr,
> >> + const char *data, size_t count);
> >>
> >> /* UBI device attributes (correspond to files in '/<sysfs>/class/ubi/ubiX') */
> >> static struct device_attribute dev_eraseblock_size =
> >> @@ -142,6 +145,8 @@ static struct device_attribute dev_bgt_enabled =
> >> __ATTR(bgt_enabled, S_IRUGO, dev_attribute_show, NULL);
> >> static struct device_attribute dev_mtd_num =
> >> __ATTR(mtd_num, S_IRUGO, dev_attribute_show, NULL);
> >> +static struct device_attribute dev_trigger_bitrot_check =
> >> + __ATTR(trigger_bitrot_check, S_IWUSR, NULL, trigger_bitrot_check);
> >
> > How about making this attribute a RW one, so that users could check
> > if there's a bitrot check in progress.
>
> As the check will be initiated only by userspace and writing to the trigger
> while a check is running will return anyway a EBUSY I don't really see
> a point why userspace would check for it.
Sometime you just want to know whether something is running or not (in
this case the bitrot check) without risking to trigger a new action...
>
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * ubi_volume_notify - send a volume change notification.
> >> @@ -334,6 +339,36 @@ int ubi_major2num(int major)
> >> return ubi_num;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/* "Store" method for file '/<sysfs>/class/ubi/ubiX/trigger_bitrot_check' */
> >> +static ssize_t trigger_bitrot_check(struct device *dev,
> >> + struct device_attribute *mattr,
> >> + const char *data, size_t count)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ubi_device *ubi;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >
> > Maybe that's on purpose, but you do not check the value passed in data
> > (in your documention you suggest to do an
> > echo 1 > /sys/class/ubi/ubiX/trigger_bitrot_check).
>
> Yeah, the example using "1", but why should I limit it to it?
> The idea was that any write will trigger a check.
Okay.
[...]
> >> + /*
> >> + * e is member of a fastmap pool. We are not allowed to
> >> + * remove it from that pool as the on-flash fastmap data
> >> + * structure refers to it. Let's schedule a new fastmap write
> >> + * such that the said PEB can get released.
> >> + */
> >> + else {
> >> + ubi_schedule_fm_work(ubi);
> >> + spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock);
> >> +
> >> + err = 0;
> >> + }
> >
> > Nitpick, but checkpatch complains about 'else' or 'else if' statements
> > that are not on the '}' line.
>
> I like it as is because I can nicely place the comment above the else {.
> And checkpatch is not our lawmaker.
You could put your comment after the braces.
Anyway, you might dislike the coding style imposed by kernel
developers/maintainers, but this is what keeps the kernel code
consistent across the different subsystems.
I agree that some checks done by checkpatch can be a bit restrictive in
some cases (like the 80 characters limit), but I really think the
braces and else[ if] placements should be enforced.
This being said, this is your call to make, so I won't complain about
it anymore ;-).
>
> >> + }
> >> + else {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Ignore read errors as we return only work related errors.
> >> + * Read errors will be logged by ubi_io_read().
> >> + */
> >> + err = 0;
> >> + }
> >
> > Nitpicking again, but you can avoid another level of indentation by
> > doing the following:
> >
> > if (err != UBI_IO_BITFLIPS) {
> > err = 0;
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > dbg_wl("found bitflips in PEB %d", e->pnum);
> > spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock);
> > /* ... */
You didn't answer to that one.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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