Re: [PATCH v2] ubi: gluebi: Fix NULL pointer dereference caused by ftl notifier

Zhihao Cheng
2024-06-21T01:59:47Z

在 2024/6/21 6:06, Gagan Sidhu 写道:
> hi zhihao,
>
> so i assume my crude paraphrase is correct? that i may have unintentionally pointed the finger at you, but the real issue is GLUEBI existing with BLOCK on the same volume?
>

Uhhh, I don't think I mean this. We will make it clear after getting the
layers' information about your device.
Everything goes well from you guys talking, this patch did reject the
mtdblock loading from a gluebi device, which may lead booting failed if
your rootfs depends on a mtdblock(which is generated from the gluebi
device).
From your description 'spoke to a user, gave him a build without
MTD_GLUEBI, restoring changes made by (HAHAHA you are! huawei), it
booted fine'. One thing I'm curious about, if the device boots from the
mtdblock(which is generated from gluebi device), the gluebi device won't
be generated because you have turned off the CONFIG_MTD_UBI_GLUEBI, then
the device boots successfully, which means that your rootfs is most
likely loaded from ubiblock0_0. My questions are:
Q1. According to previous talking, the booting configuration is
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c#L774,
why the device could boot from ubiblock0_0?(it looks like that the
device uses config from
https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=blob;f=target/linux/generic/pending-5.15/493-ubi-set-ROOT_DEV-to-ubiblock-rootfs-if-unset.patch;h=266a6331c2acc0f7c17d9ac72f54659d31b56249;hb=HEAD
[pointed by Richard]). I'm unfamilar with openwrt(Maybe you and Daniel
know much), is that possible the device could automatically choose boot
device in the openwrt framework?
Q2. Take a step back, if the gluebi device and ubiblock are generated
from the same UBI volume, there will be error message like 'cannot open
device %d, volume %d, error -16' if we open gluebi device and ubiblock
at the same time, but I cannot find the error message from the log.
Q3. If the Q1's answer is 'yes', which means that your device could
automatically choose to boot rootfs from ubiblock0_0 when it cannot
dectect a mtdblock(which is generated from the gluebi device), why it
can fail booting before reverting this patch? I mean, the mtdblock won't
be generated before reverting this patch, the device should
automatically choose to boot rootfs from ubiblock0_0, but it does not,
and the error message in Q2 is not shown in your log.

So, we will answer above questions if we have the layers' information
about your device('mtdinfo -a' and 'ubinfo -a' after booting the
device). There are two situations:
1. the layers' information after reverting this patch
2. the layers' information after disable CONFIG_MTD_UBI_GLUEBI

> i was just joking about you being a spy by the way. it was post-fix euphoria ;)

It's nothing, I knew your are not serious.
>
> master rich, shepherd weinberger, what say ye?
>
> your wisdom and insight would be greatly appreciated as closure and maybe even a patch to reflect the beauty of collaborating over current ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Gagan
>
>> On Jun 17, 2024, at 10:03 PM, Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2024/6/18 6:13, Gagan Sidhu 写道:
>> Hi,
>>> spoke to a user, gave him a build without MTD_GLUEBI, restoring changes made by (HAHAHA you are! huawei), it booted fine.
>>
>> May I have the layers' information about mtd/ubi, you can get it by 'mtdinfo -a' and 'ubinfo -a' after booting the device.
>> I guess your device boots from ubiblock0_0. There are two ways loading booting device:
>> 1. mtd(nand)
>> ubi(holds volume ubi0_0)
>> mtd12 (gluebi)
>> mtdblock12 (This way is cut by this patch, so mtdblock12 is not generated, just like Daniel&Richard analyzed)
>> 2. mtd(nand)
>> ubi(holds volume ubi0_0)
>> ubiblock0_0
>>
>>> so we need to think about either deprecating GLUEBI or setting an option in the Kconfig that ensures they are mutually exclusive.
>>> gluebi is definitely highjacking the block device created by UBI_BLOCK and adding the MTD_UBIVOLUME flag to it.
>>
>> The gluebi(mtd) and ubiblock could exist on the same UBI volume at the same time, but they cannot be opened at the same time. Here is an example I tested on the local machine:
>>
>> ↗ ubiblock0_0
>> mtd0(nandsim) -> ubi0 (holds volume ubi0_0)
>> ↘ gluebi(mtd1)
>>
>> [root@localhost ~]# ubinfo -a
>> UBI version: 1
>> Count of UBI devices: 1
>> UBI control device major/minor: 10:61
>> Present UBI devices: ubi0
>>
>> ubi0
>> Volumes count: 1
>> Logical eraseblock size: 126976 bytes, 124.0 KiB
>> Total amount of logical eraseblocks: 8192 (1040187392 bytes, 992.0 MiB)
>> Amount of available logical eraseblocks: 0 (0 bytes)
>> Maximum count of volumes 128
>> Count of bad physical eraseblocks: 0
>> Count of reserved physical eraseblocks: 160
>> Current maximum erase counter value: 2
>> Minimum input/output unit size: 2048 bytes
>> Character device major/minor: 246:0
>> Present volumes: 0
>>
>> Volume ID: 0 (on ubi0)
>> Type: dynamic
>> Alignment: 1
>> Size: 8026 LEBs (1019109376 bytes, 971.8 MiB)
>> State: OK
>> Name: vol_a
>> Character device major/minor: 246:1
>> [root@localhost ~]# mtdinfo -a
>> Count of MTD devices: 2
>> Present MTD devices: mtd0, mtd1
>> Sysfs interface supported: yes
>>
>> mtd0
>> Name: NAND simulator partition 0
>> Type: nand
>> Eraseblock size: 131072 bytes, 128.0 KiB
>> Amount of eraseblocks: 8192 (1073741824 bytes, 1024.0 MiB)
>> Minimum input/output unit size: 2048 bytes
>> Sub-page size: 512 bytes
>> OOB size: 64 bytes
>> Character device major/minor: 90:0
>> Bad blocks are allowed: true
>> Device is writable: true
>>
>> mtd1
>> Name: vol_a
>> Type: ubi
>> Eraseblock size: 126976 bytes, 124.0 KiB
>> Amount of eraseblocks: 8026 (1019109376 bytes, 971.8 MiB)
>> Minimum input/output unit size: 2048 bytes
>> Sub-page size: 2048 bytes
>> Character device major/minor: 90:2
>> Bad blocks are allowed: false
>> Device is writable: true
>>
>> [root@localhost ~]# lsblk | grep ubi
>> ubiblock0_0 251:0 0 971.9M 0 disk
>>
>>> there is no other explanation.
>>> looks like this was an absolutely amazing exchange that even furthered our understanding of wtf is going on.
>>> thanks for being a great moderator for MTD rich
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gagan
>>
>
> .