linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v3 20/20] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the disabling of block write protection

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: <20190826144921.70ee27c5@collabora.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:49:21 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
Cc:     <marek.vasut@...il.com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <richard@....at>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v3 20/20] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the disabling
 of block write protection

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:09:09 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com> wrote:

> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
> 
> spi_nor_unlock() unlocks blocks of memory or the entire flash memory
> array, if requested. clear_sr_bp() unlocks the entire flash memory
> array at boot time. This calls for some unification, clear_sr_bp() is
> just an optimization for the case when the unlock request covers the
> entire flash size.
> 
> Merge the clear_sr_bp() and stm_lock/unlock logic and introduce
> spi_nor_unlock_all(), which makes an unlock request that covers the
> entire flash size.
> 
> Get rid of the MFR handling and implement specific manufacturer
> default_init() fixup hooks.
> 
> Move write_sr_cr() to avoid to add a forward declaration. Prefix
> new function with 'spi_nor_'.
> 
> Note that this changes a bit the logic for the SNOR_MFR_ATMEL and
> SNOR_MFR_INTEL cases. Before this patch, the Atmel and Intel chips
> did not set the locking ops, but unlocked the entire flash at boot
> time, while now they are setting the locking ops to stm_locking_ops.
> This should work, since the the disable of the block protection at the
> boot time used the same Status Register bits to unlock the flash, as
> in the stm_locking_ops case.
> 
> In future, we should probably add new hooks to
> 'struct spi_nor_flash_parameter' to describe how to interact with the
> Status and Configuration Registers in the form of:
> 	nor->params.ops->read_sr
> 	nor->params.ops->write_sr
> 	nor->params.ops->read_cr
> 	nor->params.ops->write_sr
> We can retrieve this info starting with JESD216 revB, by checking the
> 15th DWORD of Basic Flash Parameter Table, or with later revisions of
> the standard, by parsing the "Status, Control and Configuration Register
> Map for SPI Memory Devices".
> 
> Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>

Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>

Though I'd recommend waiting a bit before applying that one. As
discussed privately, we might have problems when ->quad_enable is set
to spansion_read_cr_quad_enable or spansion_no_read_cr_quad_enable.