| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170324090659.76178a37@bbrezillon>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:06:59 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Laurent Monat <laurent.monat@...uantique.com>,
thorsten.christiansson@...uantique.com,
Enrico Jorns <ejo@...gutronix.de>,
Jason Roberts <jason.e.roberts@...el.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Graham Moore <grmoore@...nsource.altera.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@...el.com>,
Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/53] mtd: nand: denali: fix erased page checking
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:43:43 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
>
> 2017-03-23 16:56 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:04:44 +0900
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Boris,
> >>
> >> 2017-03-23 5:56 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> >> > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:07:17 +0900
> >> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
> >> >> dev_err(denali->dev,
> >> >> @@ -1148,12 +1136,15 @@ static int denali_read_page(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
> >> >> if (check_erased_page) {
> >> >> read_oob_data(mtd, chip->oob_poi, denali->page);
> >> >>
> >> >> - /* check ECC failures that may have occurred on erased pages */
> >> >> - if (check_erased_page) {
> >> >> - if (!is_erased(buf, mtd->writesize))
> >> >> - mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> >> >> - if (!is_erased(buf, mtd->oobsize))
> >> >> - mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> >> >> + stat = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(
> >> >> + buf, mtd->writesize,
> >> >> + chip->oob_poi, mtd->oobsize,
> >> >> + NULL, 0,
> >> >> + chip->ecc.strength * chip->ecc.steps);
> >> >
> >> > That's not how it's supposed to be done. Each chunk should be checked
> >> > independently. Here is a simple example explaining why this is
> >> > important:
> >> >
> >> > Let's consider the following setup:
> >> > - 4k pages
> >> > - 16bits/1024bytes ECC
> >> >
> >> > With your approach, you turn this into:
> >> > - 4k pages
> >> > - 64bits/4096bytes ECC
> >> >
> >> > Now suppose you have 32 bitflips in the first 1024 bytes. The real ECC
> >> > config is expected to report uncorrectable errors, but your approach
> >> > will just report that 32 bits have been fixed, which is wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> OK. How about adding a helper like follows:
> >>
> >> static int denali_check_erased_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> >> struct nand_chip *chip, uint8_t *buf)
> >> {
> >> uint8_t *ecc_code = chip->buffers->ecccode;
> >> int ecc_steps = chip->ecc.steps;
> >> int ecc_size = chip->ecc.size;
> >> int ecc_bytes = chip->ecc.bytes;
> >> int i, ret;
> >>
> >> ret = mtd_ooblayout_get_eccbytes(mtd, ecc_code, chip->oob_poi, 0,
> >> chip->ecc.total);
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> for (i = 0; i < ecc_steps; i++) {
> >> ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(buf, ecc_size,
> >> ecc_code, ecc_bytes,
> >> NULL, 0,
> >> chip->ecc.strength);
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> >> buf += ecc_size;
> >> ecc_code += ecc_bytes;
> >> }
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Then,
> >>
> >> stat = denali_check_erased_page(mtd, chip, buf);
> >> if (stat < 0) {
> >> mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> >> /* return 0 for uncorrectable bitflips */
> >> stat = 0;
> >> }
> >
> > What's the point of checking all ECC chunks if only one contains ECC
> > errors? I really recommend to put the nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk()
> > call next to the per-ECC-block correction test.
>
>
> OK. I can fix it for software ECC fixup.
>
>
> What should I do for hardware ECC fixup case?
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/742321/
>
>
> If at least one ECC sector fails to correct bit-flips,
> the controller sets INTR__ECC_UNCOR_ERR flag.
>
>
> In this case, we can not know the number of uncorrectable errors.
>
> Possible solutions are:
>
> - Increment ecc_stats.failed only by one (compromised solution)
Let's go for this solution.
>
>
> > Also, mtd->ecc_stats.failed is supposed to be incremented each time an
> > uncorrectable error is detected. In your denali_sw_ecc_fixup()
> > implementation you can detect errors at the ECC chunk level, so you
> > should increment ecc_stats.failed for each failure and not once if at
> > least one chunk is faulty.
>
>
> Yes, I can do this for denali_sw_ecc_fixup().
>
> Can I ask what disadvantage would happen
> if ecc_stats.failed / .corrected is incremented only by one,
> where actually errors happen in multiple sectors.
Reporting wrong stats, which is not such a big deal, but let's try to
keep them correct when we can (the SW ECC fixup case).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists