Re: UBI_READWRITE constraint when opening volumes to rename

[Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>]

Am 19.10.2014 um 22:58 schrieb Andrew Murray:
> On 10 October 2014 22:09, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>>
>> As discussed with Ezequiel on IRC the right thing is to fix the UBI rename logic.
>>
>>> To satisfy my curiosity - does the UBI rename function really need to
>>> open the UBI volume as UBI_READWRITE to rename? Does it matter that a
>>> UBIFS fileystem may be writing UBI whilst a UBI rename occurs - I've
>>> assumed that UBIFS doesn't ever read/write the volume label - so it
>>> doesn't matter if it changes beneath it? (I'm not too familiar with
>>> UBI/UBIFS internals).
>>
>> Correct. Renaming a volume does not alter nor read volume data.
>> Only the UBI volume table is altered.
>> This is why I've cooked up the following patch.
>> Please give it some testing!
> 
> This appears to work for me - I can rename a mounted volume without
> any obvious side effects. I've slightly tweaked (added a break
> statement) and submitted your patch.
> 
> Though I've had a further look and have an additional questions.
> 
> This patch means that UBI_EXCLUSIVE is no longer exclusive (unless
> these constraints are with respect to the volume data only and not the
> volume table as well) - thus should we update the ubi_open_volume
> function to prevent UBI_EXCLUSIVE when metaonly is already held (and
> to prevent UBI_METAONLY when exclusive is already held)? I can't see
> the harm in doing this and it probably won't impact the use case that
> led to this patch.
>

Correct. See my first mail. :)

> I can't see any locking around the table fields and thus (with present
> patch) I assume you could perform a rename and volume remove at the
> same time - I wonder if this would sometimes break. I assume that
> anything that currently modifies the volume table will be doing so
> with exclusive held.

This is why I need to review all code paths first.
My initial patch was not supposed to be a final solution, more a base for discussion.
I.e. to follow the "less talk, more code" rule.

Thanks,
//richard