From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Pengpeng Hou <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Amit Kumar Mahapatra <amit.kumar-mahapatra@amd.com>,
Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] mtd: virt-concat: define duplicate partition handling
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:39:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874ihosp56.fsf@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260722041925.31407-1-pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn> (Pengpeng Hou's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:19:25 +0800")
Hi Pengpeng,
On 22/07/2026 at 12:19:25 +08, Pengpeng Hou <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn> wrote:
> mtd_device_parse_register() contains compatibility handling for drivers that
> call it more than once, while its comment notes that partition parsing can
> register the same partitions again.
Is this feature really relevant? Who uses that?
> When CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONED_MASTER is disabled and the first call finds
> partitions, the master itself is not registered before parsing. A later call
> can therefore reach partition parsing again.
>
> With CONFIG_MTD_VIRT_CONCAT, each newly allocated partition whose OF node
> belongs to a virtual concatenation reaches mtd_virt_concat_add(). That
> function appends the partition based only on the OF node and increments
> num_subdev without checking whether the node was already added or whether
> the fixed subdev[] array is full.
>
> A repeated parse can therefore append the same node again. If all configured
> slots were already populated, the append is out of bounds. If other members
> are still missing, the duplicate can make num_subdev reach the configured
> count with the wrong membership.
>
> A local bounds check does not seem sufficient for a correct patch:
>
> - concat_node_list and the concat population state are global, but node
> creation, addition, join creation and destruction have no common
> serialization.
But aren't these operations serialized just because of how the MTD core
is designed?
> - mtd_virt_concat_add() returns bool. false means both "not a concat
> member" and "not added". Returning false for a duplicate makes
> add_mtd_partitions() register it as an ordinary partition, while returning
> true without storing it would leak the newly allocated partition.
> - join creation and destruction call back into MTD registration helpers, so
> a driver-global mutex must have a carefully defined scope to avoid
> recursive locking.
>
> My current view is that the fix needs both a serialization contract for the
> global virtual-concat state and a tri-state add result, so the caller can
> distinguish "not a member" from a duplicate or capacity error and free the
> new partition on error.
>
> Would you prefer this serialization to live inside mtd_virt_concat, or should
> the MTD registration layer serialize the node-create/partition-add/join
> transaction? I have not attached a patch because choosing either scope
> without agreement would encode a new lifetime and error-handling contract.
If it is specific to the virt concat layer, I would try to keep the
changes contained in the virt concat driver.
Thanks,
Miquèl
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Pengpeng Hou <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Amit Kumar Mahapatra <amit.kumar-mahapatra@amd.com>,
Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] mtd: virt-concat: define duplicate partition handling
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:39:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874ihosp56.fsf@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260722041925.31407-1-pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn> (Pengpeng Hou's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:19:25 +0800")
Hi Pengpeng,
On 22/07/2026 at 12:19:25 +08, Pengpeng Hou <pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn> wrote:
> mtd_device_parse_register() contains compatibility handling for drivers that
> call it more than once, while its comment notes that partition parsing can
> register the same partitions again.
Is this feature really relevant? Who uses that?
> When CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONED_MASTER is disabled and the first call finds
> partitions, the master itself is not registered before parsing. A later call
> can therefore reach partition parsing again.
>
> With CONFIG_MTD_VIRT_CONCAT, each newly allocated partition whose OF node
> belongs to a virtual concatenation reaches mtd_virt_concat_add(). That
> function appends the partition based only on the OF node and increments
> num_subdev without checking whether the node was already added or whether
> the fixed subdev[] array is full.
>
> A repeated parse can therefore append the same node again. If all configured
> slots were already populated, the append is out of bounds. If other members
> are still missing, the duplicate can make num_subdev reach the configured
> count with the wrong membership.
>
> A local bounds check does not seem sufficient for a correct patch:
>
> - concat_node_list and the concat population state are global, but node
> creation, addition, join creation and destruction have no common
> serialization.
But aren't these operations serialized just because of how the MTD core
is designed?
> - mtd_virt_concat_add() returns bool. false means both "not a concat
> member" and "not added". Returning false for a duplicate makes
> add_mtd_partitions() register it as an ordinary partition, while returning
> true without storing it would leak the newly allocated partition.
> - join creation and destruction call back into MTD registration helpers, so
> a driver-global mutex must have a carefully defined scope to avoid
> recursive locking.
>
> My current view is that the fix needs both a serialization contract for the
> global virtual-concat state and a tri-state add result, so the caller can
> distinguish "not a member" from a duplicate or capacity error and free the
> new partition on error.
>
> Would you prefer this serialization to live inside mtd_virt_concat, or should
> the MTD registration layer serialize the node-create/partition-add/join
> transaction? I have not attached a patch because choosing either scope
> without agreement would encode a new lifetime and error-handling contract.
If it is specific to the virt concat layer, I would try to keep the
changes contained in the virt concat driver.
Thanks,
Miquèl
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-24 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-22 4:19 [RFC] mtd: virt-concat: define duplicate partition handling Pengpeng Hou
2026-07-22 4:19 ` Pengpeng Hou
2026-07-24 9:39 ` Miquel Raynal [this message]
2026-07-24 9:39 ` Miquel Raynal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874ihosp56.fsf@bootlin.com \
--to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=amit.kumar-mahapatra@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com \
--cc=pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.