linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] mtd: ubi: block: don't return on error when removing

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: <1553084515.31405.1696356876189.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:14:36 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] mtd: ubi: block: don't return on error when
 removing

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Daniel Golle" <daniel@...rotopia.org>
> An: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@...radead.org>, "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, "richard" <richard@....at>,
> "Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@...com>, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
> <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "Daniel Golle" <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
> "linux-mtd" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, "devicetree" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel"
> <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. August 2023 03:37:12
> Betreff: [PATCH v4 3/8] mtd: ubi: block: don't return on error when removing

> There is no point on returning the error from ubiblock_remove in case
> it is being called due to a volume removal event -- the volume is gone,
> we should destroy and remove the ubiblock device no matter what.
> 
> Introduce new boolean parameter 'force' to tell ubiblock_remove to go
> on even in case the ubiblock device is still busy. Use that new option
> when calling ubiblock_remove due to a UBI_VOLUME_REMOVED event.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/mtd/ubi/cdev.c  | 2 +-
> drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi.h   | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c
> index 437c5b83ffe51..69fa6fecb8494 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/block.c
> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static void ubiblock_cleanup(struct ubiblock *dev)
> 	idr_remove(&ubiblock_minor_idr, dev->gd->first_minor);
> }
> 
> -int ubiblock_remove(struct ubi_volume_info *vi)
> +int ubiblock_remove(struct ubi_volume_info *vi, bool force)
> {
> 	struct ubiblock *dev;
> 	int ret;
> @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ int ubiblock_remove(struct ubi_volume_info *vi)
> 
> 	/* Found a device, let's lock it so we can check if it's busy */
> 	mutex_lock(&dev->dev_mutex);
> -	if (dev->refcnt > 0) {
> +	if (dev->refcnt > 0 && !force) {
> 		ret = -EBUSY;
> 		goto out_unlock_dev;

Is it really safe to destroy the blk queue (via ubiblock_cleanup()) if refcnt is > 0?

Thanks,
//richard