linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] mtd: nand: denali: support "nand-ecc-strength" DT property

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]

Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:06:32 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Enrico Jorns <ejo@...gutronix.de>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...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>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] mtd: nand: denali: support "nand-ecc-strength"
 DT property

Hi Boris,


2017-03-30 23:02 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:46:00 +0900
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
>> Historically, this driver tried to choose as big ECC strength as
>> possible, but it would be reasonable to allow DT to set a particular
>> ECC strength with "nand-ecc-strength" property.  This is useful
>> when a particular ECC setting is hard-coded by firmware (or hard-
>> wired by boot ROM).
>>
>> If no ECC strength is specified in DT, "nand-ecc-maximize" is implied
>> since this was the original behavior.
>
> You said there is currently no DT users,

Right.  No DT users ever in upstream.


> so how about changing the
> "fallback to ECC maximization" behavior for DT users, and instead of
> maximizing the ECC strength take the NAND requirements into account
> (chip->ecc_strength_ds).

This is difficult to judge in some cases.

As I said before, 4/512 and 8/1024 are not equivalent.

If chip's requirement  chip->ecc_step_ds matches
to the ecc->size supported by the controller,
this is easy.


If a chip requests 1024B, then the controller can only support 512B chunk
(or vice versa), it is difficult to simply compare
ecc strength.

Is it a bad thing if we use too strong ECC strength?

The disadvantage I see is we will have less OOB-free bytes,
but this will not be fatal, I guess.




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada