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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FAD6563.7040408@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 21:15:47 +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 20:56, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> I think this is not a good enough justification. I think we may use
> 0xFFFFFFFF and other high EC values to indicate that the block was bad
> or erroneous or whatever.

Okay, then we have to store all PEB ec values. (used, free, erroneous and scrub)
This is not a big deal.
As I said, currently only used and free PEBs are stored.

I think we need also a better solution for the protection queue.
My current solution (ubi_flush_prot_queue) is not the right thing.
Today I've observed a data corruption issue an I'm sure it happened
because fastmap did the wrong thing with the protection queue.
The problem is that a PEB in the protection queue is not visible to fastmap.
(Because it writes only used and free PEBs on the flash).

> BTW, did you think about scenario of moving dumping UBI2 on on one
> device with one bad PEBs distribution and then flashing it to a
> different device with a different bad PEB distribution? What would
> happen when we have fastmap enabled? Also, what if I write it to a
> larger flash with otherwise the same geometry?
> 
> I guess we could detect these things and fall-back to scanning?

Falling back to scanning is easy.
But how can we detect such a change?

Thanks,
//richard

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