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 16:28:50 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     dedekind1@...il.com
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        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

Artem,

Am Donnerstag, 8. März 2018, 16:01:15 CET schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> 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.

You mean *not* widely used?
 
> 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.

True.
TBH Boris and I also thought that adding MLC support is not a that big deal...

Thanks,
//richard