linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mtd: onenand: Store bad block marker position in chip struct

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

Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:47:52 +0000
From:   Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
CC:     "bbrezillon@...nel.org" <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
        "richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        "Marek Vasut" <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mtd: onenand: Store bad block marker position in
 chip struct

On 04.03.19 11:58, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Frieder,
> 
> Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de> wrote on Mon, 18 Feb
> 2019 10:42:41 +0000:
> 
>> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
>>
>> The information about where the manufacturer puts the bad block
>> markers inside the bad block and in the OOB data is stored in
>> different places. Let's move this information to the chip struct,
>> as we did it for rawnand.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
>> ---
>>   drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c | 5 ++++-
>>   drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c  | 3 ---
>>   include/linux/mtd/onenand.h             | 3 +++
>>   3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> index 4ca4b194e7d7..f41d76248550 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
>> @@ -2458,7 +2458,7 @@ static int onenand_default_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)
>>                   bbm->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1);
>>   
>>           /* We write two bytes, so we don't have to mess with 16-bit access */
>> -        ofs += mtd->oobsize + (bbm->badblockpos & ~0x01);
>> +        ofs += mtd->oobsize + (this->badblockpos & ~0x01);
>>   	/* FIXME : What to do when marking SLC block in partition
>>   	 * 	   with MLC erasesize? For now, it is not advisable to
>>   	 *	   create partitions containing both SLC and MLC regions.
>> @@ -3967,6 +3967,9 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips)
>>   	if (!(this->options & ONENAND_SKIP_INITIAL_UNLOCKING))
>>   		this->unlock_all(mtd);
>>   
>> +	/* Set the bad block marker position */
>> +	this->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
>> +
>>   	ret = this->scan_bbt(mtd);
>>   	if ((!FLEXONENAND(this)) || ret)
>>   		return ret;
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> index dde20487937d..57c31c81be18 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
>> @@ -190,9 +190,6 @@ static int onenand_scan_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_bbt_descr *bd)
>>   	if (!bbm->bbt)
>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>   
>> -	/* Set the bad block position */
>> -	bbm->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
>> -
>>   	/* Set erase shift */
>>   	bbm->bbt_erase_shift = this->erase_shift;
>>   
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
>> index 0aaa98b219a4..e03aea7f7e61 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
>> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ struct onenand_chip {
>>   	unsigned int		technology;
>>   	unsigned int		density_mask;
>>   	unsigned int		options;
>> +	int			badblockpos;
> 
> Any reason not to unsign this field?

It was signed so far, but you're right that it makes more sense to 
unsign it.

> 
>>   
>>   	unsigned int		erase_shift;
>>   	unsigned int		page_shift;
>> @@ -188,6 +189,8 @@ struct onenand_chip {
>>   /* Check byte access in OneNAND */
>>   #define ONENAND_CHECK_BYTE_ACCESS(addr)		(addr & 0x1)
>>   
>> +#define ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS		0
>> +
>>   /*
>>    * Options bits
>>    */
> 
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
>