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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160222160956.GB13417@atomide.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 08:09:56 -0800
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>
Cc:	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>, rogerq@...com,
	khilman@...prootsystems.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	pali.rohar@...il.com, sre@...nel.org, pavel@....cz, nm@...com,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: Fix onenand initialization to avoid
 filesystem corruption

* Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com> [160221 10:14]:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11.02.2016 02:12, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> >Also.. There's a chance somebody has created a onenand file system
> >with recent mainline kernels that did the reset and disabled ECC.
> >So with Ivaylo's patch fixing that, those may not mount properly
> >any longer. Most likely people just keep their maemo rootfs there
> >though with the MMC being available.
> 
> I guess this is possible, but what worries me more is that the longer the
> patch is not pushed, the higher the chance somebody to end-up with broken
> rootfs. Wouldn't it be better to push it, thus preventing that happening?

Will apply today into omap-for-v4.5/fixes with Aaro's ack. Note that
Aaro found also two other error causing issues with the onenand
driver, so it seems the onenand driver has been broken for years in
the mainline kernel..

> BTW the differences for N9/50 come from ONENAND_SYS_CFG1_HF bit and
> ONENAND_SYS_CFG1_BRL_6 vs ONENAND_SYS_CFG1_BRL_4. Both are changed (later in
> the code) anyway, so I guess it is safe to reset them to default values.

Yes I think we're better off having things fully configured by the
kernel in the long run.

> Or, maybe the correct fix is to issue RESET command to onenand controller
> after GPMC reset? RESET command is supposed to put all the bits to their
> default values.

Something like that could be added if needed.

Regards,

Tony

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ