linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: brcmnand: Workaround false ECC uncorrectable errors

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: <CAOiHx=mLmEW=gK_HE6oVqaFZjMUAWoP1PxZchc_mC_A5PJn-Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:44:04 +0100
From:	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>
To:	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Cc:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: brcmnand: Workaround false ECC uncorrectable errors

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu> wrote:
> On 01/12/15 10:41, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu> wrote:
>>> +
>>> +       /* Go to start of buffer */
>>> +       buf -= FC_WORDS;
>>> +
>>> +       /* Erased if all data bytes are 0xFF */
>>> +       buf_erased = memchr_inv(buf, 0xFF, FC_WORDS) == NULL;
>>> +
>>> +       if (!buf_erased)
>>> +               goto out_free;
>>
>> We now have a function exactly for that use case in 4.4,
>> nand_check_erased_buf [1], consider using that. This also has the
>> benefit of treating bit flips as correctable as long as the ECC scheme
>> is strong enough.
>
> I have no idea whether or not it's appropriate to specify
> bitflips_threshold > 0 so it'd just be a more complex way to do
> a memchr_inv() search for 0xFF.

The threshold would be the amount of bitflips the code can correct, so
basically ecc.strength (at least that is my understanding).

> The code also has to check for the hamming code bytes being all 0x00,
> because according to the comments [2], the controller also has
> difficulty with the non-erased all-0xFFs scenario too.

According to brcmnand.c hamming can fix up to fifteen bitflips, but in
the current code you would fail a hamming protected all-0xff-page for
even a single bitflip in the data or in the ecc bytes, which means
that all-0xff-pages wouldn't be protected at all.


Jonas
--
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/