Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 2/2] mtd: Fix the behavior of otp write if there is not enough room for data
From: Christian Riesch
Date: Wed Mar 05 2014 - 03:50:53 EST
Hi Brian,
Thank you very much for your comments on the patch!
--On March 04, 2014 23:20 -0800 Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Christian,
A few comments below.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:29:45AM +0100, Christian Riesch wrote:
An OTP write shall write as much data as possible to the OTP memory
and return the number of bytes that have actually been written.
If no data could be written at all due to lack of OTP memory,
return -ENOSPC.
Signed-off-by: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Amul Kumar Saha <amul.saha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 13 +++++++++++--
drivers/mtd/devices/mtd_dataflash.c | 13 +++++--------
drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c | 7 +++++++
drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c | 10 +++++++++-
4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c index 7aa581f..cf423a6 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c
@@ -2387,8 +2387,17 @@ static int
cfi_intelext_write_user_prot_reg(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from,
size_t len, size_t *retlen,
u_char *buf)
{
- return cfi_intelext_otp_walk(mtd, from, len, retlen,
- buf, do_otp_write, 1);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = cfi_intelext_otp_walk(mtd, from, len, retlen,
+ buf, do_otp_write, 1);
+
+ /* if no data could be written due to lack of OTP memory,
+ return ENOSPC */
/*
* Can you use this style of mult-line comments please?
* It's in Documentation/CodingStyle
*/
Ok, I will change that.
+ if (!ret && len && !(*retlen))
+ return -ENOSPC;
Couldn't (shouldn't) this check be pushed to the common
mtd_write_user_prot_reg() helper in mtdcore.c?
Yes, I don't see why this wouldn't work. But I thought the code would be
easier to understand if we return the correct error code as soon as the
error is detected, not using some additional logic in some other function.
What do you think?
And once you do that, you
will see that cfi_intelext_write_user_prot_reg() (and other
mtd->_write_user_prot_reg() implementations) will never be called with
len == 0. So this just becomes (in mtdcore.c):
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
index 0a7d77e65335..ee6730748f7e 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
@@ -909,11 +909,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtd_read_fact_prot_reg);
int mtd_get_user_prot_info(struct mtd_info *mtd, size_t len, size_t
*retlen, struct otp_info *buf)
{
+ int ret;
+
if (!mtd->_get_user_prot_info)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
if (!len)
return 0;
- return mtd->_get_user_prot_info(mtd, len, retlen, buf);
+ ret = mtd->_get_user_prot_info(mtd, len, retlen, buf);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ return !(*retlen) ? -ENOSPC: 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtd_get_user_prot_info);
+
+ return ret;
}
static int cfi_intelext_lock_user_prot_reg(struct mtd_info *mtd,
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/mtd_dataflash.c
b/drivers/mtd/devices/mtd_dataflash.c index 09c69ce..5236d85 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/devices/mtd_dataflash.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/mtd_dataflash.c
@@ -545,14 +545,11 @@ static int dataflash_write_user_otp(struct
mtd_info *mtd, struct dataflash *priv = mtd->priv;
int status;
I'm not sure I quite follow the logic for the following hunk. I think it
deserves some more explanation, either in your commit or in a comment.
As it stands, you're deleting a comment and potentially changing the
return code behavior subtly.
- if (len > 64)
- return -EINVAL;
-
- /* Strictly speaking, we *could* truncate the write ... but
- * let's not do that for the only write that's ever possible.
- */
- if ((from + len) > 64)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if ((from + len) > 64) {
+ len = 64 - from;
Why are you reassigning len? Are you trying to undo the comment above,
so that you *can* truncate the write? (It looks like there are other
implmentations which will truncate the write and return -ENOSPC, FWIW.)
Currently we have two kind of implementations: We have implementations like
this one which will refuse to write any data if the write requests more
data to be written than space is available. And we have implementations
like cfi_intelext_write_user_prot_reg that will truncate the write and
write as much data that is possible (and return the number of bytes that
actually have been written, -ENOSPC shall only be returned if no data could
be written at all).
For a harmonization one of the implementations and their behavior must be
changed. I chose to change it to "write as much as possible/truncate the
write" since this is how a write should behave
(http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/write.html). And
yes, this is why I try to undo the comment.
But if you are afraid that this will break things for current users of the
functions, I would keep the old behavior. What do you think?
+ if (len <= 0)
+ return -ENOSPC;
+ }
/* OUT: OP_WRITE_SECURITY, 3 zeroes, 64 data-or-zero bytes
* IN: ignore all
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c
index 0edb0ca..db99031 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c
@@ -323,6 +323,13 @@ static ssize_t mtdchar_write(struct file *file,
const char __user *buf, size_t c default:
ret = mtd_write(mtd, *ppos, len, &retlen, kbuf);
}
+ /* return -ENOSPC only if no data was written */
+ if ((ret == -ENOSPC) && (total_retlen)) {
+ ret = 0;
+ retlen = 0;
+ /* drop the remaining data */
+ count = 0;
This block can just be a 'break' statement, no?
No. mtdchar_write may split the write into several calls of mtd_write,
mtd_write_user_prot_reg... It will call mtd_write, mtd_write_user_prot_reg
as long as there is data to be written. If the write hits the boundary of
the memory, the last call of mtd_write_user_prot_reg will return -ENOSPC.
If this was the only call of mtd_write_user_prot_reg (so no data could be
written at all), returning -ENOSPC to the user is fine. However, if data
has been written before, we must not return -ENOSPC, we must return the
number of bytes that have actually been written.
So at least it must be
if ((ret == -ENOSPC) && (total_retlen)) {
ret = 0;
break;
}
Which one do you prefer?
+ }
I'm a bit wary of changing the behavior of non-OTP writes. At a minimum,
the patch description needs to acknowledge that this affects more than
just OTP writes. But after a cursory review of mtd->_write()
implementations, it looks like there's no driver which could be
returning -ENOSPC already, so this change is probably OK.
The behavior of non-OTP writes is not changed at all. At the begin of
mtdchar_write, a check against mtd->size is done, and the write is
truncated. Therefore, non-OTP writes will never hit the end of memory in
the write function.
Regards, Christian
if (!ret) {
*ppos += retlen;
total_retlen += retlen;
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c index 419c538..6c49a6f 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
@@ -3316,7 +3316,15 @@ static int onenand_read_user_prot_reg(struct
mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, static int
onenand_write_user_prot_reg(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t from, size_t
len, size_t *retlen, u_char *buf)
{
- return onenand_otp_walk(mtd, from, len, retlen, buf, do_otp_write,
MTD_OTP_USER); + int ret;
+ ret = onenand_otp_walk(mtd, from, len, retlen, buf, do_otp_write,
MTD_OTP_USER); +
+ /* if no data could be written due to lack of OTP memory,
+ return ENOSPC */
+ if (!ret && len && !(*retlen))
+ return -ENOSPC;
Same comments from cfi_intelext_write_user_prot_reg(), so I think this
change can be dropped. (And again, 'len' never will be 0.)
+
+ return ret;
}
/**
Brian
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/