* Re: xattr patches from feb? [not found] <ED3E0BCACD909541BA94A34C4A164D4C4FCA20D3@post.tritech.se> @ 2013-06-24 12:13 ` Marc Kleine-Budde 2013-06-27 9:37 ` Mats Kärrman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Marc Kleine-Budde @ 2013-06-24 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mats Kärrman; +Cc: linux-mtd [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1023 bytes --] On 06/24/2013 01:15 PM, Mats Kärrman wrote: > Sorry for contacting you directly. I've added linux-mtd on Cc, maybe there are more people interested in the patches. > I have been running integck on UBIFS and found some issues with > corrupt xattr nodes. I found your post on the linux-mtd mailing list > but nothing seem to have happened since February. Yes, unfortunately. > What has happened since? Were the patches rejected or just ignored? > Do you still believe in them? Nothing happened, our $CUSTOMER shifted priorities. There is a locking issue with the patches. Which might be a false positive by the lockdep. I'll send you my current patches as PM, if someone else is interested, contact me. regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de | [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 259 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: xattr patches from feb? 2013-06-24 12:13 ` xattr patches from feb? Marc Kleine-Budde @ 2013-06-27 9:37 ` Mats Kärrman 2013-06-27 9:51 ` Marc Kleine-Budde 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mats Kärrman @ 2013-06-27 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Kleine-Budde; +Cc: linux-mtd Hi Marc, Thanks for your response! it was held captive by the spam filter for a while (my fault) so I didn't notice it. I know about customers and changing priorities ;) I havn't received any patches from you yet (also a mail program issue?). I have only adopted 1/5 "xattr: protect ui_size and data_len by ui_mutex" and 2/5 "fix couple bugs in UBIFS extended attribute len" (appended below). Those two seem to work well (testing still in progress) and should not be affected by the locking issue? BR // Mats --------------------------- diff -pruN a/fs/ubifs/journal.c b/fs/ubifs/journal.c --- a/fs/ubifs/journal.c 2013-06-24 15:06:39.213689332 +0200 +++ b/fs/ubifs/journal.c 2013-06-24 15:26:36.842825120 +0200 @@ -553,7 +553,8 @@ int ubifs_jnl_update(struct ubifs_info * dbg_jnl("ino %lu, dent '%.*s', data len %d in dir ino %lu", inode->i_ino, nm->len, nm->name, ui->data_len, dir->i_ino); - ubifs_assert(dir_ui->data_len == 0); + if (!xent) + ubifs_assert(dir_ui->data_len == 0); ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&dir_ui->ui_mutex)); dlen = UBIFS_DENT_NODE_SZ + nm->len + 1; @@ -573,6 +574,8 @@ int ubifs_jnl_update(struct ubifs_info * aligned_dlen = ALIGN(dlen, 8); aligned_ilen = ALIGN(ilen, 8); len = aligned_dlen + aligned_ilen + UBIFS_INO_NODE_SZ; + len = aligned_dlen + aligned_ilen + UBIFS_INO_NODE_SZ + + dir_ui->data_len; dent = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOFS); if (!dent) return -ENOMEM; @@ -649,7 +652,8 @@ int ubifs_jnl_update(struct ubifs_info * ino_key_init(c, &ino_key, dir->i_ino); ino_offs += aligned_ilen; - err = ubifs_tnc_add(c, &ino_key, lnum, ino_offs, UBIFS_INO_NODE_SZ); + err = ubifs_tnc_add(c, &ino_key, lnum, ino_offs, + UBIFS_INO_NODE_SZ + dir_ui->data_len); if (err) goto out_ro; diff -pruN a/fs/ubifs/xattr.c b/fs/ubifs/xattr.c --- a/fs/ubifs/xattr.c 2013-06-24 15:06:39.233689282 +0200 +++ b/fs/ubifs/xattr.c 2013-06-24 15:12:12.196863493 +0200 @@ -143,10 +143,10 @@ static int create_xattr(struct ubifs_inf err = -ENOMEM; goto out_free; } - inode->i_size = ui->ui_size = size; - ui->data_len = size; mutex_lock(&host_ui->ui_mutex); + inode->i_size = ui->ui_size = size; + ui->data_len = size; host->i_ctime = ubifs_current_time(host); host_ui->xattr_cnt += 1; host_ui->xattr_size += CALC_DENT_SIZE(nm->len); @@ -208,10 +208,10 @@ static int change_xattr(struct ubifs_inf err = -ENOMEM; goto out_free; } - inode->i_size = ui->ui_size = size; - ui->data_len = size; mutex_lock(&host_ui->ui_mutex); + inode->i_size = ui->ui_size = size; + ui->data_len = size; host->i_ctime = ubifs_current_time(host); host_ui->xattr_size -= CALC_XATTR_BYTES(ui->data_len); host_ui->xattr_size += CALC_XATTR_BYTES(size); --------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: xattr patches from feb? 2013-06-27 9:37 ` Mats Kärrman @ 2013-06-27 9:51 ` Marc Kleine-Budde 2013-06-27 10:59 ` Mats Kärrman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Marc Kleine-Budde @ 2013-06-27 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mats Kärrman; +Cc: linux-mtd [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1344 bytes --] On 06/27/2013 11:37 AM, Mats Kärrman wrote: > Thanks for your response! it was held captive by the spam filter for > a while (my fault) so I didn't notice it. I know about customers and > changing priorities ;) > > I havn't received any patches from you yet (also a mail program > issue?). Maybe, I'll push the patches to our git server: http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=mkl/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/v3.10/topic/ubifs-xattr > I have only adopted 1/5 "xattr: protect ui_size and data_len by ui_mutex" and 2/5 "fix couple bugs in > UBIFS extended attribute len" (appended below). > Those two seem to work well (testing still in progress) and should not be affected by the locking issue? Can you please (re)check if these patches are still the ones on my server? Can I have your Tested-by? Do they fix your problems? If so, we should try to get them mainline. And yes, the first two patches are unrelated to locking problem. The locking problems are "introduced" by "UBIFS: Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS" I think. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de | [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 259 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: xattr patches from feb? 2013-06-27 9:51 ` Marc Kleine-Budde @ 2013-06-27 10:59 ` Mats Kärrman 2013-07-24 12:36 ` Mats Kärrman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mats Kärrman @ 2013-06-27 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Kleine-Budde; +Cc: linux-mtd On Thu, June 27, 2013 11:51 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde [mkl@pengutronix.de] wrote: > Can you please (re)check if these patches are still the ones on my > server? Yes, my patch is equivalent to your committs 1a5ef9e82c7c76a90de94190df6d0ad9cfad2452 and 88dfd5c021b6a628a3b51e8f9f34e4d26a01f4f4 > Can I have your Tested-by? Do they fix your problems? I'm still testing but so far it looks promising. > If so, we should try to get them mainline. Sounds like a great idea! // Mats ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: xattr patches from feb? 2013-06-27 10:59 ` Mats Kärrman @ 2013-07-24 12:36 ` Mats Kärrman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Mats Kärrman @ 2013-07-24 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Kleine-Budde; +Cc: linux-mtd Hi Marc, I have now run your patches both on the bench using the integck test program and in live systems for an extended period of time. The xattr node related errors I saw before has not appeared any more. All tests run on a MPC5125 based system using NOR FLASH. Tested-by: Mats Karrman <mats.karrman@tritech.se> BR // Mats ________________________________________ From: linux-mtd [linux-mtd-bounces@lists.infradead.org] on behalf of Mats Kärrman [Mats.Karrman@tritech.se] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:59 PM To: Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: linux-mtd Subject: RE: xattr patches from feb? On Thu, June 27, 2013 11:51 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde [mkl@pengutronix.de] wrote: > Can you please (re)check if these patches are still the ones on my > server? Yes, my patch is equivalent to your committs 1a5ef9e82c7c76a90de94190df6d0ad9cfad2452 and 88dfd5c021b6a628a3b51e8f9f34e4d26a01f4f4 > Can I have your Tested-by? Do they fix your problems? I'm still testing but so far it looks promising. > If so, we should try to get them mainline. Sounds like a great idea! // Mats ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-07-24 12:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <ED3E0BCACD909541BA94A34C4A164D4C4FCA20D3@post.tritech.se>
2013-06-24 12:13 ` xattr patches from feb? Marc Kleine-Budde
2013-06-27 9:37 ` Mats Kärrman
2013-06-27 9:51 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2013-06-27 10:59 ` Mats Kärrman
2013-07-24 12:36 ` Mats Kärrman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox