> 2023年12月24日 01:13，Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> 写道：
>
> Coly Li wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Hi Ira,
>>
>> The above information is accurate and very helpful, thank you!
>>
>> From __badblocks_check(), the problematic code block is,
>> 1303 re_check:
>> 1304 bad.start = s;
>> 1305 bad.len = sectors;
>> 1306
>> 1307 if (badblocks_empty(bb)) {
>> 1308 len = sectors;
>> 1309 goto update_sectors;
>> 1310 }
>> 1311
>> 1312 prev = prev_badblocks(bb, &bad, hint);
>> 1313
>> 1314 /* start after all badblocks */
>> 1315 if ((prev + 1) >= bb->count && !overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> 1316 len = sectors;
>> 1317 goto update_sectors;
>> 1318 }
>> 1319
>> 1320 if (overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
>> 1321 if (BB_ACK(p[prev]))
>> 1322 acked_badblocks++;
>> 1323 else
>> 1324 unacked_badblocks++;
>> 1325
>> 1326 if (BB_END(p[prev]) >= (s + sectors))
>> 1327 len = sectors;
>> 1328 else
>> 1329 len = BB_END(p[prev]) - s;
>> 1330
>> 1331 if (set == 0) {
>> 1332 *first_bad = BB_OFFSET(p[prev]);
>> 1333 *bad_sectors = BB_LEN(p[prev]);
>> 1334 set = 1;
>> 1335 }
>> 1336 goto update_sectors;
>> 1337 }
>> 1338
>> 1339 /* Not front overlap, but behind overlap */
>> 1340 if ((prev + 1) < bb->count && overlap_behind(bb, &bad, prev +
>> 1)) {
>> 1341 len = BB_OFFSET(p[prev + 1]) - bad.start;
>> 1342 hint = prev + 1;
>> 1343 goto update_sectors;
>> 1344 }
>> 1345
>> 1346 /* not cover any badblocks range in the table */
>> 1347 len = sectors;
>> 1348
>> 1349 update_sectors:
>>
>> If the checking range is before all badblocks records in the badblocks table,
>> value -1 is returned from prev_badblock(). Code blocks between line 1314 and
>> line 1337 doesn't hanle the implicit '-1' value properly. Then counter
>> unacked_badblocks is increased at line 1324 mistakenly.
>>
>> So the value prev should be checked and make sure '>= 0' before comparing
>> the checking range with a badblock record returned by prev_badblocks(). Other
>> wise it dones't make sense.
>>
>> For badblocks_set() and badblocks_clear(), 'prev < 0' is explicitly checked,
>> value '-1' doesn't go though into following code.
>>
>> Could you please apply and try the attached patch? Hope it may help a bit.
>>
>> And now it is weekend time, you may be out of office and not able to access
>> the testing hardware. I will do more testing from myside and update more info
>> if necessary.
>>
>> Thanks for the report and debug!
>>
>> Coly Li
>>
>> [debug patch snipped]
>
> This debug patch does fix our tests. Thanks!
>
> But Nan has submitted a series to fix this as well.[1]
>
> I'm going to test his series as well.
Hi Ira,
Thanks for the very quick response, and the positive result. Now I compose a
official patch and submit to Jens.
Coly Li
