linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] mtd: rawnand: qcom: update BBT related flags

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: <20180718234255.4e51c188@xps13>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:42:55 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Abhishek Sahu <absahu@...eaurora.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mtd: rawnand: qcom: update BBT related flags

Abhishek,

Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018
23:41:44 +0200:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018
> 23:36:37 +0200:
> 
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200
> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Abhishek,
> > > 
> > > Abhishek Sahu <absahu@...eaurora.org> wrote on Fri,  6 Jul 2018
> > > 13:21:58 +0530:
> > >     
> > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT.      
> > > 
> > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip
> > > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a
> > > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM.
> > > 
> > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a
> > > mistake, right?    
> >   
> > ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on    
> > BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing
> > to do.  
> 
> Oh right. Then doing so is harmless.

Could you please update the commit log to reflect this aspect?

> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Miquèl