linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix Block Protection function

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:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:33:11 +0800
From:   masonccyang@...c.com.tw
To:     "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc:     bbrezillon@...nel.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, frieder.schrempf@...tron.de,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, juliensu@...c.com.tw,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com, marek.vasut@...il.com, richard@....at,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mtd: rawnand: Add support Macronix Block Protection
 function

Hi Miquel,

> > 
> > > Macronix AC series support using SET/GET_FEATURES to change
> > > Block Protection and Unprotection.
> > > 
> > > MTD default _lock/_unlock function replacement by manufacturer
> > > postponed initialization. 
> > 
> > Why would we do that?
> > 
> > Anyway your solution looks overkill, if we ever decide to
> > implement these hooks for raw nand, it is better just to not
> > overwrite them in nand_scan_tail() if they have been filled
> > previously (ie. by the manufacturer code).
> 
> Actually you should add two NAND hooks that do the interface with the
> MTD hooks. In the NAND hooks, check that the request is to lock all the
> device, otherwise return -ENOTSUPP.

sorry, can't get your point.

Because the NAND entire chip will be protected if PT(protection) pin 
is active high at power-on.

> 
> Then fill-in these two hooks from the manufacturer code, without the
> postponed init.
> 

But in the final of nand_scan_tail(), mtd->_lock/_unlock will be
filled by NULL, right ?

thanks & best regards,
Mason

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information 
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be 
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail 
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive 
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as 
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be 
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is 
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. 
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Macronix International Co., Ltd.

=====================================================================

============================================================================

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Macronix International Co., Ltd.

=====================================================================