What is wrong?

What is wrong?

[Leon Pollak]

Hello, all.
I will be very thankful for any hint...:)

I use JFFS2 version 2.2.(NAND)(SUMMARY)(C) 2001-2006 Red Hat, Inc. 
(comes with MontaVistaPro 5.0). Kernel 2.6.18.
I prepare JFFS2 partition with mkfs.jffs2 and sumtool and burn it with 
flash_eraseall and 'nandwrite -p'.
Everything works fine.

The NAND is write protected by HW and the partition is mounted as RO. 
At some moment I need to update a small file. 
So I do: 
- HW write protect off, 
- remount RW, 
- update file, 
- sync, 
- remount RO, 
- write protect on.

Looking at linux console I see a lot of messages like:
Erase at 0x00400000 failed immediately: errno -5
Erase at 0x003e0000 failed immediately: errno -5
......
Erase at 0x00340000 failed immediately: errno -5
jffs2_flush_wbuf(): Write failed with -5
Write of 2016 bytes at 0x002578a0 failed. returned -5, retlen 0
Not marking the space at 0x002578a0 as dirty because the flash driver 
returned retlen zero.


This is repeated for a long time, but everything seems work OK.
The sequential starts and even file updates are also OK, without error 
messages.

What do I do wrong? Thanks a lot.

--  
Leon

Re: What is wrong?

[Brian Norris]

Hi Leon,

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> I use JFFS2 version 2.2.(NAND)(SUMMARY)(C) 2001-2006 Red Hat, Inc. 
> (comes with MontaVistaPro 5.0). Kernel 2.6.18.
> I prepare JFFS2 partition with mkfs.jffs2 and sumtool and burn it with 
> flash_eraseall and 'nandwrite -p'.
> Everything works fine.
> 
> The NAND is write protected by HW and the partition is mounted as RO. 
> At some moment I need to update a small file. 
> So I do: 
> - HW write protect off, 
> - remount RW, 
> - update file, 
> - sync, 
> - remount RO, 
> - write protect on.
> 
> Looking at linux console I see a lot of messages like:
> Erase at 0x00400000 failed immediately: errno -5
> Erase at 0x003e0000 failed immediately: errno -5
> ......
> Erase at 0x00340000 failed immediately: errno -5
> jffs2_flush_wbuf(): Write failed with -5
> Write of 2016 bytes at 0x002578a0 failed. returned -5, retlen 0
> Not marking the space at 0x002578a0 as dirty because the flash driver 
> returned retlen zero.
> 
> 
> This is repeated for a long time, but everything seems work OK.
> The sequential starts and even file updates are also OK, without error 
> messages.
> 
> What do I do wrong? Thanks a lot.

It's possible you're seeing symptoms of this:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00

It seems like maybe JFFS2 is still doing some GC and/or write flushing
after the remount.

Could try this?

 - HW write protect off, 
 - remount RW, 
 - update file, 
 - sync, 
 - remount RO, 
 - sync, <---------- add this, to see if you're experiencing any
                     writeback after remount
 - write protect on.

Brian

Re: What is wrong?

[Brian Norris]

+ Richard, Andrew

(Meant to CC earlier)

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:11:48PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> > I use JFFS2 version 2.2.(NAND)(SUMMARY)(C) 2001-2006 Red Hat, Inc. 
> > (comes with MontaVistaPro 5.0). Kernel 2.6.18.
> > I prepare JFFS2 partition with mkfs.jffs2 and sumtool and burn it with 
> > flash_eraseall and 'nandwrite -p'.
> > Everything works fine.
> > 
> > The NAND is write protected by HW and the partition is mounted as RO. 
> > At some moment I need to update a small file. 
> > So I do: 
> > - HW write protect off, 
> > - remount RW, 
> > - update file, 
> > - sync, 
> > - remount RO, 
> > - write protect on.
> > 
> > Looking at linux console I see a lot of messages like:
> > Erase at 0x00400000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > Erase at 0x003e0000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > ......
> > Erase at 0x00340000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > jffs2_flush_wbuf(): Write failed with -5
> > Write of 2016 bytes at 0x002578a0 failed. returned -5, retlen 0
> > Not marking the space at 0x002578a0 as dirty because the flash driver 
> > returned retlen zero.
> > 
> > 
> > This is repeated for a long time, but everything seems work OK.
> > The sequential starts and even file updates are also OK, without error 
> > messages.
> > 
> > What do I do wrong? Thanks a lot.
> 
> It's possible you're seeing symptoms of this:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00
> 
> It seems like maybe JFFS2 is still doing some GC and/or write flushing
> after the remount.
> 
> Could try this?
> 
>  - HW write protect off, 
>  - remount RW, 
>  - update file, 
>  - sync, 
>  - remount RO, 
>  - sync, <---------- add this, to see if you're experiencing any
>                      writeback after remount
>  - write protect on.

Re: What is wrong?

[Brian Norris]

+ others

Hi Leon,

Can you please keep the CC list intact? And please try to reply below
the quotes and trim context, rather than top-posting. Thanks!

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:00:25PM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> I am VERY(!) thankful to you for the answer.
> First, I am calm now that there is no any error on my side and the 
> system remains clean despite these messages.
> Second, yes, the workaround worked.

That's nice to hear, but that is (as you note) a workaround. You should
not need an extra sync after remounting read-only. Do you think you can
try the linked patch?

commit 807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00
Author: Andrew Ruder <andrew.ruder@elecsyscorp.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 30 09:26:54 2014 -0600

    fs/super.c: sync ro remount after blocking writers

Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should help
you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support which can be
affected by this bug.

> May thanks to you for your help!!!

You're welcome.

I have a few other questions: are you using NOR or NAND (it looks like
maybe NAND)?

Leaving most context intact for others, below.

> On Wednesday 26 February 2014 17:11:48 you wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> > > The NAND is write protected by HW and the partition is mounted as
> > > RO.
> > > At some moment I need to update a small file.
> > > So I do:
> > > - HW write protect off,
> > > - remount RW,
> > > - update file,
> > > - sync,
> > > - remount RO,
> > > - write protect on.
> > > 
> > > Looking at linux console I see a lot of messages like:
> > > Erase at 0x00400000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > > Erase at 0x003e0000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > > ......
> > > Erase at 0x00340000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > > jffs2_flush_wbuf(): Write failed with -5
> > > Write of 2016 bytes at 0x002578a0 failed. returned -5, retlen 0
> > > Not marking the space at 0x002578a0 as dirty because the flash
> > > driver
> > > returned retlen zero.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is repeated for a long time, but everything seems work OK.
> > > The sequential starts and even file updates are also OK, without
> > > error messages.
> > > 
> > > What do I do wrong? Thanks a lot.
> > 
> > It's possible you're seeing symptoms of this:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit
> > /?id=807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00
> > 
> > It seems like maybe JFFS2 is still doing some GC and/or write flushing
> > after the remount.
> > 
> > Could try this?
> > 
> >  - HW write protect off,
> >  - remount RW,
> >  - update file,
> >  - sync,
> >  - remount RO,
> >  - sync, <---------- add this, to see if you're experiencing any
> >                      writeback after remount
> >  - write protect on.

Regards,
Brian

Re: What is wrong?

[Brian Norris]

+ others

Hi Leon,

Can you please keep the CC list intact? And please try to reply below
the quotes and trim context, rather than top-posting. Thanks!

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:00:25PM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> I am VERY(!) thankful to you for the answer.
> First, I am calm now that there is no any error on my side and the 
> system remains clean despite these messages.
> Second, yes, the workaround worked.

That's nice to hear, but that is (as you note) a workaround. You should
not need an extra sync after remounting read-only. Do you think you can
try the linked patch?

commit 807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00
Author: Andrew Ruder <andrew.ruder@elecsyscorp.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 30 09:26:54 2014 -0600

    fs/super.c: sync ro remount after blocking writers

Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should help
you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support which can be
affected by this bug.

> May thanks to you for your help!!!

You're welcome.

I have a few other questions: are you using NOR or NAND (it looks like
maybe NAND)?

Leaving most context intact for others, below.

> On Wednesday 26 February 2014 17:11:48 you wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> > > The NAND is write protected by HW and the partition is mounted as
> > > RO.
> > > At some moment I need to update a small file.
> > > So I do:
> > > - HW write protect off,
> > > - remount RW,
> > > - update file,
> > > - sync,
> > > - remount RO,
> > > - write protect on.
> > > 
> > > Looking at linux console I see a lot of messages like:
> > > Erase at 0x00400000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > > Erase at 0x003e0000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > > ......
> > > Erase at 0x00340000 failed immediately: errno -5
> > > jffs2_flush_wbuf(): Write failed with -5
> > > Write of 2016 bytes at 0x002578a0 failed. returned -5, retlen 0
> > > Not marking the space at 0x002578a0 as dirty because the flash
> > > driver
> > > returned retlen zero.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is repeated for a long time, but everything seems work OK.
> > > The sequential starts and even file updates are also OK, without
> > > error messages.
> > > 
> > > What do I do wrong? Thanks a lot.
> > 
> > It's possible you're seeing symptoms of this:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit
> > /?id=807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00
> > 
> > It seems like maybe JFFS2 is still doing some GC and/or write flushing
> > after the remount.
> > 
> > Could try this?
> > 
> >  - HW write protect off,
> >  - remount RW,
> >  - update file,
> >  - sync,
> >  - remount RO,
> >  - sync, <---------- add this, to see if you're experiencing any
> >                      writeback after remount
> >  - write protect on.

Regards,
Brian

Re: What is wrong?

[Andrew Ruder]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:08PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should help
> you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support which can be
> affected by this bug.

Definitely sounds like the same issue and I'm kind of glad to see it
crop up in another filesystem.  Also glad you Cc'd me with the URL
because I had the painful task of recreating this issue on another
filesystem on my TODO list as I didn't think it had ever been committed.

Cheers,
Andy

Re: What is wrong?

[Andrew Ruder]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:08PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should help
> you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support which can be
> affected by this bug.

Definitely sounds like the same issue and I'm kind of glad to see it
crop up in another filesystem.  Also glad you Cc'd me with the URL
because I had the painful task of recreating this issue on another
filesystem on my TODO list as I didn't think it had ever been committed.

Cheers,
Andy

Re: What is wrong?

[Brian Norris]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0600, Andrew Ruder wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:08PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should help
> > you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support which can be
> > affected by this bug.
> 
> Definitely sounds like the same issue and I'm kind of glad to see it
> crop up in another filesystem.

We haven't confirmed that the *patch* actually affects Leon's problem;
just that if he runs an additional 'sync' it solves his problem. Leon,
did you get to try the patch?

Anyway, should commit 807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00 be marked
for -stable? 

Brian

Re: What is wrong?

[Leon Pollak]

Hello, all.

I am really sorry for the silence - I was on the business trip and 
returned today.

I will recheck everything and try. Meanwhile, the news are not good: our 
guys say that it appears that the additional sync DOES NOT SOLVE the 
issue.
I ask for excuse, but as I did not know the exact processing, I was 
mistaken and, probably, used already gc-ted unit for tests.

Sorry, again.

BR

On Tuesday 04 March 2014 00:33:25 Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0600, Andrew Ruder wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:08PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should
> > > help you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support
> > > which can be affected by this bug.
> > 
> > Definitely sounds like the same issue and I'm kind of glad to see it
> > crop up in another filesystem.
> 
> We haven't confirmed that the *patch* actually affects Leon's problem;
> just that if he runs an additional 'sync' it solves his problem.
> Leon, did you get to try the patch?
> 
> Anyway, should commit 807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00 be
> marked for -stable?
> 
> Brian

-- 
Leon

Re: What is wrong?

[Leon Pollak]

Hello, all.

I am really sorry for the silence - I was on the business trip and 
returned today.

I will recheck everything and try. Meanwhile, the news are not good: our 
guys say that it appears that the additional sync DOES NOT SOLVE the 
issue.
I ask for excuse, but as I did not know the exact processing, I was 
mistaken and, probably, used already gc-ted unit for tests.

Sorry, again.

BR

On Tuesday 04 March 2014 00:33:25 Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0600, Andrew Ruder wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:08PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should
> > > help you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support
> > > which can be affected by this bug.
> > 
> > Definitely sounds like the same issue and I'm kind of glad to see it
> > crop up in another filesystem.
> 
> We haven't confirmed that the *patch* actually affects Leon's problem;
> just that if he runs an additional 'sync' it solves his problem.
> Leon, did you get to try the patch?
> 
> Anyway, should commit 807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00 be
> marked for -stable?
> 
> Brian

-- 
Leon

Re: What is wrong?

[Andrew Ruder]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:54:04AM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> I will recheck everything and try. Meanwhile, the news are not good: our 
> guys say that it appears that the additional sync DOES NOT SOLVE the 
> issue.

Gonna be honest, I have a tough time explaining this. :(  Unfortunately
I don't have a board here with a hardware write protect which would make
things easier to verify.

- Andy

Re: What is wrong?

[Andrew Ruder]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:54:04AM +0200, Leon Pollak wrote:
> I will recheck everything and try. Meanwhile, the news are not good: our 
> guys say that it appears that the additional sync DOES NOT SOLVE the 
> issue.

Gonna be honest, I have a tough time explaining this. :(  Unfortunately
I don't have a board here with a hardware write protect which would make
things easier to verify.

- Andy

Re: What is wrong?

[Leon Pollak]

Brian, hello.

I am a bit more free now and wish to solve the issue.
I am a bit confused now - what should I try to test? Can you help me.

Many hanks ahead.

On Tuesday 04 March 2014 00:33:25 Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0600, Andrew Ruder wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:22:08PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > Perhaps Richard or Andrew can comment on whether this patch should
> > > help you. But I think JFFS2 on NAND uses write-buffered support
> > > which can be affected by this bug.
> > 
> > Definitely sounds like the same issue and I'm kind of glad to see it
> > crop up in another filesystem.
> 
> We haven't confirmed that the *patch* actually affects Leon's problem;
> just that if he runs an additional 'sync' it solves his problem.
> Leon, did you get to try the patch?
> 
> Anyway, should commit 807612db2f9940b9fa6deaef054eb16d51bd3e00 be
> marked for -stable?
> 
> Brian
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

-- 
Leon

Re: What is wrong? - Cont

[Leon Pollak]

Meanwhile, some more inputs:

First, to remind, the scenario:
After the first burning (from withing U-Boot), the NAND is write 
protected by HW and the partition is mounted as RO.
At some moment I need to update a small file. 
So I do: 
- HW write protect off, 
- remount RW, 
- update file, <---- The main point  <----
- sync, 
- remount RO, 
- write protect on.
At this moment, the console is full of error messages - crash or a lot 
of "Erase at 0x..... failed immediately: errno -5".
-------------------------------

Now two more test cases:

1. After burning JFFS2 from U-Boot and STILL WITHOUT working from flash, 
I boot into NFS, mount the partition as RW, keep it for 3-5 seconds and 
reboot into flashes.
This works FINE, updating passes silently, no crazy messages and/or 
crashes.

2. I added to the partition a flag file "first_time.dat" and in rc3.d 
added script:
if [ -e first_time.dat ] ; then
    'HW unlock flash'
    mount -o,remount,rw /home
    sleep 20
    mount -o,remount,ro /home
    'HW lock flash';
    rm first_time.dat
fi
Against my hopes, this DOES NOT helped. Crashes and messages appeared as 
"usual"....


Any help will be highly appreciated.
-- 
Leon

Re: what is wrong?

[Eva Lovi]

I found out, that it's supported.
(http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Module-intel8x0)

Then what is wrong? Why can't I play anything?



On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Eva Lovi <lovrencsics.eva.2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I tried aplay, but I don't hear anything.
> In amixer I increased the volume, but I still don't hear anything.
> What's the problem?
>

what is wrong?

[Eva Lovi]

Hello,

Does Alsa support this soundcard?
card 0: I82801AAICH [Intel 82801AA-ICH], device 0: Intel ICH [Intel 82801AA-ICH]

I tried aplay, but I don't hear anything.
In amixer I increased the volume, but I still don't hear anything.
What's the problem?

Eva Lovi

Re: What is wrong ???

[Gáspár Lajos]

Jorge Davila írta:
> Well, I don't know if this post will help you but I found some 
> problems compiling the kernel in the 2.6 series. My solution was 
> install the compatibility package for gcc 3.2 (the actual version (in 
> my system) is 4.1.1 - for gcc - and then compile using gcc 3.2.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
Thanx... I haven't tried yet....
> Jorge Davila.
I have just applied TARPIT and u32 with pom-ng and now it goes...
The only warning is the "initialization from incompatible pointer 
type"... Something changed in the kernel and the pom-ng is not up to date...

Swifty

Re: What is wrong ???

[Jorge Davila]

Well, I don't know if this post will help you but I found some problems 
compiling the kernel in the 2.6 series. My solution was install the 
compatibility package for gcc 3.2 (the actual version (in my system) is 
4.1.1 - for gcc - and then compile using gcc 3.2.

Hope this helps.

Jorge Davila.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:52:43 +0100
  Gáspár Lajos <swifty@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> Why do I get these errors when I compile my new kernel ???
> 
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ipv4options.c:161: warning: initialization from 
>incompatible pointer type
> 
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c: In function `target':
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c:33: warning: implicit declaration 
>of function `skb_ip_make_writable'
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c: At top level:
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c:72: warning: initialization from 
>incompatible pointer type
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c:73: warning: initialization from 
>incompatible pointer type
> 
> WARNING: "skb_ip_make_writable" [net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.ko] 
>undefined!
> make[2]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [modules] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.19.2'
> make: *** [debian/stamp-build-kernel] Error 2
> 
> 
> kernel: 2.6.19.2
> iptables: 1.3.7
> POM-ng: 20070121
> 
> Swifty
> 

Jorge Isaac Davila Lopez
Nicaragua Open Source
davila@nicaraguaopensource.com

Re: What is wrong ???

[Marco Berizzi]

> Yes... And it works without it.... But I need TARPIT support....

AFAIK netfilter has been heavely modified between 2.6.1
and 2.6.19 so I think that POM modules wouldn't work as is.

Maybe others on this list may help you.

RE: What is wrong ???

[Rob Sterenborg]

> Yes... And it works without it.... But I need TARPIT support....

The compilation process complains about ipt_IPV4OPTSTRIP which is not
the same as ipt_TARPIT.
You could try leaving ipt_IPV4OPTSTRIP out: you don't have to apply
*all* patches...


Grts,
Rob

Re: What is wrong ???

[Gáspár Lajos]

Marco Berizzi írta:
> Gáspár Lajos wrote:
>
>   
>> POM-ng: 20070121
>>     
>
> Did you try without pom?
>
>
>   
Yes... And it works without it.... But I need TARPIT support....

Re: What is wrong ???

[Marco Berizzi]

Gáspár Lajos wrote:

> POM-ng: 20070121

Did you try without pom?

What is wrong ???

[Gáspár Lajos]

Hi list,

Why do I get these errors when I compile my new kernel ???

net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_ipv4options.c:161: warning: initialization from 
incompatible pointer type

net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c: In function `target':
net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c:33: warning: implicit declaration 
of function `skb_ip_make_writable'
net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c: At top level:
net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c:72: warning: initialization from 
incompatible pointer type
net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.c:73: warning: initialization from 
incompatible pointer type

WARNING: "skb_ip_make_writable" 
[net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_IPV4OPTSSTRIP.ko] undefined!
make[2]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
make[1]: *** [modules] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.19.2'
make: *** [debian/stamp-build-kernel] Error 2


kernel: 2.6.19.2
iptables: 1.3.7
POM-ng: 20070121

Swifty