linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:16:40 +0200
From:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] UBI checkpointing support

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:58:01 +0200 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> wrote:
> To write the ubibis and to ubibis? Hmm... not sure.
> 
> To write the fastmap and to fastmap or decide to not fastmap because all
> PEBs within the first 64 have too high erasecounter? Sounds better IMO.

FWIW, fastmap sounds reasonable to me.

(aside from the fact that "fast" is the outcome of using the map,
whereas the map's definition is essentially a peb/leb map).

Anyways,

CONFIG_MTD_UBI_FASTMAP, ubi_find_fastmap(), ubi_scan_fastmap(),
ubi_read_fastmap(), ubi_update_fastmap() ...

all seem pretty explanatory IMO.

Using plain "map" (ubi_find_map, ubi_update_map) might also be an
option, however it might be less obvious.

Regards,
Shmulik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/