Re: [PATCH 1/1] pstore/ram: Check member of buffers during the initialization phase of the pstore

[yunlong xing]

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:47 PM Guilherme G. Piccoli
<gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 01/08/2023 03:04, Yunlong Xing wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> > index 85aaf0fc6d7d..eb6df190d752 100644
> > --- a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> > +++ b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c
> > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ static int persistent_ram_post_init(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, u32 sig,
> >       sig ^= PERSISTENT_RAM_SIG;
> >
> >       if (prz->buffer->sig == sig) {
> > -             if (buffer_size(prz) == 0) {
> > +             if (buffer_size(prz) == 0 && buffer_start(prz) == 0) {
> >                       pr_debug("found existing empty buffer\n");
>
> Thanks for the patch! I'd also adjust the above print statement to
> reflect the different paths (empty buffers vs illegal one) and maybe
> bump it to pr_info, or even pr_warn(_once?).

I don't think it's necessary.
Through testing, the probability of this situation occurring is still very low.
Using 20 devices, reboot every 10 seconds, and only once after 96 hours.
The panic stack information is as follows:

case A：
 sysdump_panic_event+0x3b4/0x5b8
 atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x54/0x90
 panic+0x1c8/0x42c
 die+0x29c/0x2a8
 die_kernel_fault+0x68/0x78
 __do_kernel_fault+0x1c4/0x1e0
 do_bad_area+0x40/0x100
 do_translation_fault+0x68/0x80
 do_mem_abort+0x68/0xf8
 el1_da+0x1c/0xc0
 __raw_writeb+0x38/0x174
 __memcpy_toio+0x40/0xac
 persistent_ram_update+0x44/0x12c
 persistent_ram_write+0x1a8/0x1b8
 ramoops_pstore_write+0x198/0x1e8
 pstore_console_write+0x94/0xe0
 console_unlock+0x3a4/0x5d8
 register_console+0x3ac/0x488
 pstore_register+0x1f8/0x204
 ramoops_probe+0x460/0x508
 platform_drv_probe+0xb0/0xf4
 really_probe+0x1c8/0x7d0
 driver_probe_device+0xc0/0x140
 __device_attach_driver+0x10c/0x200
 bus_for_each_drv+0xa8/0x11c
 __device_attach.llvm.1835537715725466631+0xf0/0x19c
 bus_probe_device+0x40/0xe0
 device_add+0x964/0xb8c
 of_device_add+0x40/0x54
 of_platform_device_create_pdata+0xb8/0x140
 of_platform_default_populate_init+0x5c/0xd4

case B
 sysdump_panic_event+0x720/0xd38
 atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xc0
 panic+0x1c4/0x6e4
 die+0x3c0/0x428
 bug_handler+0x4c/0x9c
 brk_handler+0x98/0x14c
 do_debug_exception+0x114/0x2ec
 el1_dbg+0x18/0xbc
 usercopy_abort+0x90/0x94
 __check_object_size+0x17c/0x2c4
 persistent_ram_update_user+0x50/0x220
 persistent_ram_write_user+0x354/0x428
 ramoops_pstore_write_user+0x34/0x50
 write_pmsg+0x14c/0x26c
 do_iter_write+0x1cc/0x2cc
 vfs_writev+0xf4/0x168
 do_writev+0xa4/0x200
 __arm64_sys_writev+0x20/0x2c
 el0_svc_common+0xc8/0x22c
 el0_svc_handler+0x1c/0x28
 el0_svc+0x8/0x100
>
> What do you all think, makes sense or could we pollute dmesg too much?
> Cheers!