linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mtd: onenand: Store bad block marker position in chip struct

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: <20190417120441.119ae33e@xps13>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:04:41 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
Cc:     "bbrezillon@...nel.org" <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
        "richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        "Marek Vasut" <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mtd: onenand: Store bad block marker position in
 chip struct

Hi Frieder,

Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de> wrote on Thu, 21 Mar
2019 08:47:52 +0000:

> On 04.03.19 11:58, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Frieder,
> > 
> > Schrempf Frieder <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de> wrote on Mon, 18 Feb
> > 2019 10:42:41 +0000:
> >   
> >> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
> >>
> >> The information about where the manufacturer puts the bad block
> >> markers inside the bad block and in the OOB data is stored in
> >> different places. Let's move this information to the chip struct,
> >> as we did it for rawnand.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c | 5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c  | 3 ---
> >>   include/linux/mtd/onenand.h             | 3 +++
> >>   3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
> >> index 4ca4b194e7d7..f41d76248550 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c
> >> @@ -2458,7 +2458,7 @@ static int onenand_default_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)
> >>                   bbm->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1);
> >>   
> >>           /* We write two bytes, so we don't have to mess with 16-bit access */
> >> -        ofs += mtd->oobsize + (bbm->badblockpos & ~0x01);
> >> +        ofs += mtd->oobsize + (this->badblockpos & ~0x01);
> >>   	/* FIXME : What to do when marking SLC block in partition
> >>   	 * 	   with MLC erasesize? For now, it is not advisable to
> >>   	 *	   create partitions containing both SLC and MLC regions.
> >> @@ -3967,6 +3967,9 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips)
> >>   	if (!(this->options & ONENAND_SKIP_INITIAL_UNLOCKING))
> >>   		this->unlock_all(mtd);
> >>   
> >> +	/* Set the bad block marker position */
> >> +	this->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
> >> +
> >>   	ret = this->scan_bbt(mtd);
> >>   	if ((!FLEXONENAND(this)) || ret)
> >>   		return ret;
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
> >> index dde20487937d..57c31c81be18 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_bbt.c
> >> @@ -190,9 +190,6 @@ static int onenand_scan_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_bbt_descr *bd)
> >>   	if (!bbm->bbt)
> >>   		return -ENOMEM;
> >>   
> >> -	/* Set the bad block position */
> >> -	bbm->badblockpos = ONENAND_BADBLOCK_POS;
> >> -
> >>   	/* Set erase shift */
> >>   	bbm->bbt_erase_shift = this->erase_shift;
> >>   
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
> >> index 0aaa98b219a4..e03aea7f7e61 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/onenand.h
> >> @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ struct onenand_chip {
> >>   	unsigned int		technology;
> >>   	unsigned int		density_mask;
> >>   	unsigned int		options;
> >> +	int			badblockpos;  
> > 
> > Any reason not to unsign this field?  
> 
> It was signed so far, but you're right that it makes more sense to 
> unsign it.

With this addressed please add my:

Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>

Thanks,
Miquèl