linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubi: Reject MLC NAND

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, 08 Mar 2018 17:01:15 +0200
From:   Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        Mark Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, tharvey@...eworks.com,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: Reject MLC NAND

On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 15:43 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> As stated by David Woodhouse, it was a huge mistake by UBI to not
> reject MLC 
> NAND from the very beginning.

Correction: when we were developing UBI/UBIFS and upstreamed them, MLC
was widely used yet we did not really know about it. So there was
nothing to reject yet.

The mistake is that we did not add the reject timely. When people
started reporting MLC issues we were answering that UBI/UBIFS stack
needs more work to make MLC safe to use, and we hoped someone would do
the work.

Artem.