linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: replace MTD_UBI_BEB

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: <1345187208.27859.3.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:06:48 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Cc:	Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: replace MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT with user-space
 parameter

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 16:50 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Yes, but the main drawback I was referring to is those platforms already
> setting MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE other than the default, by means of kernel
> configuration.
> (there's one platform known to do so in its defconfig, that's
> sam9_l9260_defconfig, which uses 3% instead of the "standard" 2%).

Yes, I understand this. I think there are few such systems and many of
them are fine to pass the parameter explicitly.

> We force these systems to change their usermode because we changed ubi's
> default BEB limit to be 20/1024 _hardcoded_ (instead of kernel
> configurable as previously was).

Not necessarily, they can come to us and ask to add the kernel option.

> Is this ok?

It is not ideal, but I am willing to take this risk.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)