linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking

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: <551D7DB4.9010607@dave-tech.it>
Date:	Thu, 02 Apr 2015 19:34:44 +0200
From:	Andrea Scian <rnd4@...e-tech.it>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dedekind1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Implement bitrot checking

Richard,

Il 29/03/2015 14:13, Richard Weinberger ha scritto:
> +	mutex_lock(&ubi->buf_mutex);
> +	err = ubi_io_read(ubi, ubi->peb_buf, e->pnum, 0, ubi->peb_size);
> +	mutex_unlock(&ubi->buf_mutex);
> +	if (err == UBI_IO_BITFLIPS) {
> +		dbg_wl("found bitflips in PEB %d", e->pnum);
> +		spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock);
> +

IIUC you trigger the action as soon as you have a bitflip error, is this
correct?

Isn't this too much conservative? You usually have a RBER on MLC devices
that's between 1E-7 (for brand new devices) and 1E-4 (for devices with
1k-2k P/E cycle after 100k-300k read-without-P/E)

Having a few bitflips on a block read is more that usual and current ECC
can correct more that 16 bit error over 512/1KiB.

WDYT?

Kind Regards,

-- 

Andrea SCIAN

DAVE Embedded Systems
--
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/