linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] [RFC] UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout

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: <4FAD493F.1040804@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 19:15:43 +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: [PATCH 1/7] [RFC] UBI: Add checkpoint on-chip layout

Am 11.05.2012 14:21, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
>>> It is weird that you do not have an array of ECs instead for _every_
>>> PEB. Why wasting the flash and time writing/reading this data?
>>
>> By array of ECs you mean that all ec values are written to the flash
>> and pnum is the index?
>> Sounds sane.
> 
> Yes, to me it sounds like the only sane way, unless there is a strong
> reason to have redundant "pnum" fields. :-)

While looking at my own code a bit closer I found out why I haven't used the
array approach. B-)
Currently only ec values for PEBs within the free and used list are stored.
Therefore, the array can have gaps. E.g. If PEB X is in the erroneous list.

Thanks,
//richard


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