linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb

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: <545343CA.7080507@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:09:46 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	hujianyang <hujianyang@...wei.com>, dedekind1@...il.com
CC:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: vtbl: Use ubi_eba_atomic_leb_change()

Hujianyang,

Am 31.10.2014 um 05:03 schrieb hujianyang:
> Hi Artem and Richard,
> 
> We are using atomic operation, leb_change(), for master_node
> in ubifs-level. We use two lebs for master_node even if they
> are changed with atomic operation.
> 
> I think volume_table and master_node play similar roles. Do
> you think changing VTBL record into one peb is OK? I just
> what to know if I missed something. Could you please take
> some time to explain that?

I'm not sure if I correctly understand your question.

If we use only one PEB for the VTBL existing UBI implementations
would break as they assume we have two.

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/