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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:30:07 +0000 From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> CC: "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>, "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, "Richard Weinberger" <richard@....at>, Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support On 02/06/17 06:43, Brian Norris wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:29:11PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> On Wed, 17 May 2017 17:39:07 +1200 >> Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> Setting the of_node for the mtd device allows the generic mtd code to >>> setup the partitions. Additionally we must specify a non-zero erasesize >>> for the partitions to be writeable. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> >>> --- >>> drivers/mtd/devices/mchp23k256.c | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/devices/mchp23k256.c b/drivers/mtd/devices/mchp23k256.c >>> index 2542f5b8b63f..02c6b9dcbd3e 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/mchp23k256.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/mchp23k256.c >>> @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static int mchp23k256_probe(struct spi_device *spi) >>> >>> data = dev_get_platdata(&spi->dev); >>> >>> + mtd_set_of_node(&flash->mtd, spi->dev.of_node); >>> flash->mtd.dev.parent = &spi->dev; >>> flash->mtd.type = MTD_RAM; >>> flash->mtd.flags = MTD_CAP_RAM; >>> @@ -151,6 +152,10 @@ static int mchp23k256_probe(struct spi_device *spi) >>> flash->mtd._read = mchp23k256_read; >>> flash->mtd._write = mchp23k256_write; >>> >>> + flash->mtd.erasesize = PAGE_SIZE; >>> + while (flash->mtd.size & (flash->mtd.erasesize - 1)) >>> + flash->mtd.erasesize >>= 1; >>> + >> >> Can we fix allocate_partition() to properly handle the >> master->erasesize == 0 case instead of doing that? > > Is everything actually ready for the eraseblock size to be 0? That was my initial motivation for faking it. > That would > seem surprising to many applications, I would think. Can you, for > instance, even use UBI on such a device? I've tried ext2 and I believe Andrew has tried minix fs. We're talking SRAM so UBI/UBIFS doesn't really provide much benefit for this use-case. > BTW, I feel like this check is a little more natural to do with > 'mtd->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE', rather than checking the (apparently > meaningless) erasesize. > > (I realize there's a later version of these patches, but I figured I'd > put my comments where the suggestion was brought up.) > > Brian >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists