| 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: <20180516110839.46e881c6@bbrezillon>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:08:39 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Chris Moore <moore@...e.fr>,
"Wan, Jane (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)" <jane.wan@...ia.com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"computersforpeace@...il.com" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
"marek.vasut@...il.com" <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
"yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com" <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
"prabhakar.kushwaha@....com" <prabhakar.kushwaha@....com>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"jagdish.gediya@....com" <jagdish.gediya@....com>,
"shreeya.patel23498@...il.com" <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>,
"Bos, Ties (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)" <ties.bos@...ia.com>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] mtd: rawnand: use bit-wise majority to recover the
contents of ONFI parameter
On Wed, 16 May 2018 09:42:27 +0200
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> > >>> +static void nand_bit_wise_majority(const void **srcbufs,
> > >>> + unsigned int nsrcbufs,
> > >>> + void *dstbuf,
> > >>> + unsigned int bufsize)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + int i, j, k;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + for (i = 0; i < bufsize; i++) {
> > >>> + u8 cnt, val;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + val = 0;
> > >>> + for (j = 0; j < 8; j++) {
> > >>> + cnt = 0;
> > >>> + for (k = 0; k < nsrcbufs; k++) {
> > >>> + const u8 *srcbuf = srcbufs[k];
> > >>> +
> > >>> + if (srcbuf[i] & BIT(j))
> > >>> + cnt++;
> > >>> + }
> > >>> + if (cnt > nsrcbufs / 2)
> > >>> + val |= BIT(j);
> > >>> + }
> > >>> + ((u8 *)dstbuf)[i] = val;
> > >>> + }
> > >>> +}
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/*
> > >>> * Check if the NAND chip is ONFI compliant, returns 1 if it is, 0 otherwise.
> > >>> */
> > >>> static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > >>> @@ -5102,7 +5131,7 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > >>> return 0;
> > >>> >>> /* ONFI chip: allocate a buffer to hold its parameter page */
> > >>> - p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>> + p = kzalloc((sizeof(*p) * 3), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >>> if (!p)
> > >>> return -ENOMEM;
> > >>> >>> @@ -5113,21 +5142,32 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip *chip)
> > >>> }
> > >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> > >>> - ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, p, sizeof(*p), true);
> > >>> + ret = nand_read_data_op(chip, &p[i], sizeof(*p), true);
> > >>> if (ret) {
> > >>> ret = 0;
> > >>> goto free_onfi_param_page;
> > >>> }
> > >>> >>> - if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (uint8_t *)p, 254) ==
> > >>> + if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (u8 *)&p[i], 254) ==
> > >>> le16_to_cpu(p->crc)) {
> > >>> + if (i)
> > >>> + memcpy(p, &p[i], sizeof(*p));
> > >>> break;
> > >>> }
> > >>> }
> > >>> >>> if (i == 3) {
> > >>> - pr_err("Could not find valid ONFI parameter page; aborting\n");
> > >>> - goto free_onfi_param_page;
> > >>> + const void *srcbufs[3] = {p, p + 1, p + 2};
> > >>> +
> > >>> + pr_warn("Could not find a valid ONFI parameter page, trying bit-wise majority to recover it\n");
> > >>> + nand_bit_wise_majority(srcbufs, ARRAY_SIZE(srcbufs), p,
> > >>> + sizeof(*p));
> > >>> +
> > >>> + if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (u8 *)p, 254) !=
> > >>> + le16_to_cpu(p->crc)) {
> > >>> + pr_err("ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting\n");
> > >>> + goto free_onfi_param_page;
> > >>> + }
> > >>> }
> > >>> >>> /* Check version */
> > >> This version is still hard coded for a three sample bitwise majority vote.
> > >> So why not use the method which I suggested previously for v2 and which
> > >> I repeat below?
> > > Because I want the nand_bit_wise_majority() function to work with
> > > nsrcbufs > 3 (the ONFI spec says there's at least 3 copy of the param
> > > page, but NAND vendor can decide to put more). Also, if the X copies of
> > > the PARAM are corrupted (which is rather unlikely), that means we
> > > already spent quite a lot of time reading the different copies and
> > > calculating the CRC, so I think we don't care about perf optimizations
> > > when doing bit-wise majority.
> > >
> > >> The three sample bitwise majority can be implemented without bit level
> > >> manipulation using the identity:
> > >> majority3(a, b, c) = (a & b) | (a & c) | (b & c)
> > >> This can be factorized slightly to (a & (b | c)) | (b & c)
> > >> This enables the operation to be performed 8, 16, 32 or even 64 bits at
> > >> a time depending on the hardware.
> > >>
> > >> This method is not only faster and but also more compact.
> > >>
> >
> > I do understand that the ONFI specifications permit more than 3 copies.
> > However elsewhere the proposed code shows no intention of handling other cases.
> > The constant 3 is hard coded in the following lines extracted from the proposed code:
> > ...
> > + p = kzalloc((sizeof(*p) * 3), GFP_KERNEL);
> > ...
> > for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> > ...
> > if (i == 3) {
> > ...
> > + const void *srcbufs[3] = {p, p + 1, p + 2};
> >
> > Moreover the last of these is difficult to generalize.
>
> Indeed, this is something to improve. I think Boris' request was to
> prepare changes like this one, to avoid the situation where the code
> does not scale (like this 'p, p + 1, p + 2').
Yep, here is a quick/untested patch [1] making ONFI param page
detection and recovery more robust by reading more than 3 param pages if
there are more. And that's the reason I want a generic bit-wise
majority helper, not something that only works for 3 copies.
[1]http://code.bulix.org/t21eys-335698
Powered by blists - more mailing lists