linux-kernel - 答复: [PATCH RFC v2] ubi: ubi_wl_get_peb: Increase the number of attempts while getting PEB

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]

Message-ID: <0B80F9D4116B2F4484E7279D5A66984F7D875E@dggemi524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:59:37 +0000
From:   chengzhihao <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
CC:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 答复: [PATCH RFC v2] ubi: ubi_wl_get_peb: Increase the number of attempts while getting PEB

This patch missed the fixes pull request(5.3-rc6), will it be in v5.3-rc7?

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Richard Weinberger [mailto:richard.weinberger@...il.com] 
发送时间: 2019年8月14日 5:38
收件人: chengzhihao <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
抄送: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>; zhangyi (F) <yi.zhang@...wei.com>; linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
主题: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] ubi: ubi_wl_get_peb: Increase the number of attempts while getting PEB

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:51 AM Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Running stress test io_paral (A pressure ubi test in mtd-utils) on an 
> UBI device with fewer PEBs (fastmap enabled) may cause ENOSPC errors 
> and make UBI device read-only, but there are still free PEBs on the 
> UBI device. This problem can be easily reproduced by performing the 
> following steps on a 2-core machine:
>   $ modprobe nandsim first_id_byte=0x20 second_id_byte=0x33 parts=80
>   $ modprobe ubi mtd="0,0" fm_autoconvert
>   $ ./io_paral /dev/ubi0
>
> We may see the following verbose:
> (output)
>   [io_paral] update_volume():108: failed to write 380 bytes at offset
>   95920 of volume 2
>   [io_paral] update_volume():109: update: 97088 bytes
>   [io_paral] write_thread():227: function pwrite() failed with error 28
>   (No space left on device)
>   [io_paral] write_thread():229: cannot write 15872 bytes to offs 31744,
>   wrote -1
> (dmesg)
>   ubi0 error: ubi_wl_get_peb [ubi]: Unable to get a free PEB from user WL
>   pool
>   ubi0 warning: ubi_eba_write_leb [ubi]: switch to read-only mode
>   CPU: 0 PID: 2027 Comm: io_paral Not tainted 5.3.0-rc2-00001-g5986cd0 #9
>   ubi0 warning: try_write_vid_and_data [ubi]: failed to write VID header
>   to LEB 2:5, PEB 18
>   Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.12.0
>   -0-ga698c8995f-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
>   Call Trace:
>     dump_stack+0x85/0xba
>     ubi_eba_write_leb+0xa1e/0xa40 [ubi]
>     vol_cdev_write+0x307/0x520 [ubi]
>     vfs_write+0xfa/0x280
>     ksys_pwrite64+0xc5/0xe0
>     __x64_sys_pwrite64+0x22/0x30
>     do_syscall_64+0xbf/0x440
>
> In function ubi_wl_get_peb, the operation of filling the pool
> (ubi_update_fastmap) with free PEBs and fetching a free PEB from the 
> pool is not atomic. After thread A filling the pool with free PEB, 
> free PEB may be taken away by thread B. When thread A checks the 
> expression again, the condition is still unsatisfactory. At this time, 
> there may still be free PEBs on UBI that can be filled into the pool.
>
> This patch increases the number of attempts to obtain PEB. An extreme 
> case (No free PEBs left after creating test volumes) has been tested 
> on different type of machines for 100 times. The biggest number of 
> attempts are shown below:
>
>              x86_64     arm64
>   2-core        4         4
>   4-core        8         4
>   8-core        4         4
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>

Thanks for addressing this!
I'll take this version. :-)

--
Thanks,
//richard