linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] UBI: UBIVIS (aka 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4FACEEA1.9020400@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 12:49:05 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
CC:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, tim.bird@...sony.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Heinz.Egger@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] UBI: UBIVIS (aka checkpointing) support

Am 11.05.2012 12:46, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 10:33 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> First of all, yes it's fully backward-compatible. It uses two new internal volume IDs
>> with compat = UBI_COMPAT_DELETE.
>> Old UBI implementations will delete the checkpoint and continue with scanning...
> 
> OK. BTW, these patches do not compile when the fastmap is disabled. I
> hope you'll just kill the ifdefs in the next revision and this problem
> will go away.

It builds fine here with CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CHECKPOINT=n.
What error do you get?

>> Regarding design, ubi_wl_get_peb() currently offers three types of data types.
>> UBI_LONGTERM, UBI_SHORTTERM and UBI_UNKNOWN. Do we really need them?
>> Checkpointing has a pool of unknown PEBs. This PEBs have to be scanned while attaching.
>> For now I had to create three pools (for UBI_LONGTERM, UBI_SHORTTERM and UBI_UNKNOWN).
>> This makes the whole thing complexer than needed.
>> It introduces also some nasty corner cases.
> 
> But AFAIR we already agreed that we kill these, no? I thought you'll
> send a separate patch for this. We do not need this feature and to our
> shame it even was not working and there was a bug found very recently.

Perfect!
I was confused and thought that this feature will be removed later...

Thanks,
//richard


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)