linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2015 06:28:45 +0200
From:	Andrea Scian <rnd4@...e-tech.it>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Han Xu <b45815@...escale.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in
 default ECC read functions

Il 04/08/2015 09:21, Richard Weinberger ha scritto:
> Andrea,
>
> Am 04.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Andrea Scian:
>>> I'm not sure whether introducing a read-before-write check is the best solution.
>>> At least we need hard numbers for slow/old SLC NANDs too.
>>
>> We can enable the feature only for MLC, AFAIK it has not been required for old SLC ;-)
>
> I think this needs more discussion.
>
> Boris, Brian, will you be at Embedded Linux Conference Europe in Dublin?
> Maybe we can discuss these issues (data retention, ff-checks, etc...) in person and
 > figure out where to address them.
> I really want to avoid ad-hoc solutions. :)

Maybe I'll be at ELCE this year too
I'll be glad to meet all of you in person and participate to this 
discussion. :)

It will be nice if also some silicon vendor would like to participate. I 
know that someone from micron is actively following us on this ML, but I 
don't really know if there's someone here in Europe. :)

>
>> Thanks.
>> In your opinion, enabling chk_io is correct to rough estimate the overhead
 >> or does it enable too much checks?
>
> You mean the other checks bedside of self_check_write()? You can comment them out
 > for your tests.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>

Kind Regards,

-- 

Andrea SCIAN

DAVE Embedded Systems
--
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/