linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 069/101] ubi: fastmap: Correctly handle interrupted erasures in EBA

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:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:32:12 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Lars Persson <lists@...h.nu>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Martinbayern@...look.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 069/101] ubi: fastmap: Correctly handle interrupted erasures in EBA

Lars,

Am Sonntag, 23. September 2018, 15:49:42 CEST schrieb Lars Persson:
> Hi Richard
> 
> Sorry, I assumed this omission from -stable was a mistake.
> 
> The timing for our boot increased from 45 seconds to 55 seconds on one
> chip and 42 seconds to 48 seconds on another chip. The regression was
> completely fixed by applying the extra patches. The way I see it the
> first patch is a significant slow-down so the second patch is required
> to restore performance.

okay, this is not good. Let's put the performance patch also into -stable
to get rid of that regression.
Usually I'm rather conservative with adding non-trivial material to -stable.
As history has shown, Fastmap is special. ;-)

Out of interest, what flashes are these? I'm interested in page vs. erase size.
Did you give UBIFS bulk-read try?

Greg, I'll send another mail which will state what patches are needed.

Thanks,
//richard