linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mtd: block2mtd: Add support for specifying MTD write size and subpage shift

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: <20170607084642.GG4690@pali>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:46:42 +0200
From:   Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mtd: block2mtd: Add support for specifying MTD write
 size and subpage shift

On Monday 05 June 2017 13:27:18 Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Pali,
> 
> Am 05.06.2017 um 13:25 schrieb Pali Rohár:
> > On Monday 05 June 2017 13:23:22 Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> Pali,
> >>
> >> Am 05.06.2017 um 13:21 schrieb Pali Rohár:
> >>> On Friday 02 June 2017 18:13:02 Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>>> Pali,
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 02.06.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Pali Rohár:
> >>>>> It is needed for creating emulated devices suitable for using in UBI layer
> >>>>> and with UBIFS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why?
> >>>
> >>> ubifs depends on write size of nand. And without those parameters as
> >>> specified in cover letter I'm unable to mount N900 rootfs image exported
> >>> via block2mtd. ubifs reject such image.
> >>
> >> Hmm, so you render block2mtd into a semi-NAND chip? :)
> > 
> > Probably you can call it like that. But it is still MTD device...
> 
> This is what I meant in my other mail.
> You add NAND specific properties but still denote it as MTD_RAM/ROM.
> I'm not sure whether this is a good idea.

Ok, lets wait what other people think.

At least patches like fallback or check should be less problematic and
could be applied separately.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com