linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nand: brcmnand: correctly verify erased pages

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: <2fea8057-8b84-790e-60ba-b6848a186e18@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 14:43:42 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>,
        computersforpeace@...il.com, kdasu.kdev@...il.com,
        miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com,
        sumit.semwal@...aro.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nand: brcmnand: correctly verify erased pages



On 5/4/2020 2:29 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> The current code checks that the whole OOB area is erased.
> This is a problem when JFFS2 cleanmarkers are added to the OOB, since it will
> fail due to the usable OOB bytes not being 0xff.
> Correct this by only checking that the ECC aren't 0xff.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>

Can you provide a Fixes: tag for this change?

> ---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> index e4e3ceeac38f..546f0807b887 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> @@ -2018,6 +2018,7 @@ static int brcmnand_read_by_pio(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
>  static int brcmstb_nand_verify_erased_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  		  struct nand_chip *chip, void *buf, u64 addr)
>  {
> +	struct mtd_oob_region oobecc;
>  	int i, sas;
>  	void *oob = chip->oob_poi;
>  	int bitflips = 0;
> @@ -2035,11 +2036,24 @@ static int brcmstb_nand_verify_erased_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.steps; i++, oob += sas) {
> +	for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.steps; i++) {
>  		ecc_chunk = buf + chip->ecc.size * i;
> -		ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(ecc_chunk,
> -						  chip->ecc.size,
> -						  oob, sas, NULL, 0,
> +
> +		ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(ecc_chunk, chip->ecc.size,
> +						  NULL, 0, NULL, 0,
> +						  chip->ecc.strength);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		bitflips = max(bitflips, ret);
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i = 0; mtd->ooblayout->ecc(mtd, i, &oobecc) != -ERANGE; i++)
> +	{
> +		ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(NULL, 0,
> +						  oob + oobecc.offset,
> +						  oobecc.length,
> +						  NULL, 0,
>  						  chip->ecc.strength);
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			return ret;
> 

-- 
Florian