linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Do not check for bad block if bbt is unavailable

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: <20210203122422.6963b0ed@collabora.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:24:22 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        richard@....at
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, vigneshr@...com,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: Do not check for bad block if bbt is
 unavailable

On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 16:22:42 +0530
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 3 February 2021 3:49:14 PM IST, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:42:02 +0530
> >Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> >> 
> >> >> I got more information from the vendor, Telit. The access to the  
> >3rd    
> >> >partition is protected by Trustzone and any access in non privileged
> >> >mode (where Linux kernel runs) causes kernel panic and the device
> >> >reboots.   
> >
> >Out of curiosity, is it a per-CS-line thing or is this section
> >protected on all CS?
> >  
> 
> Sorry, I didn't get your question. 

The qcom controller can handle several chips, each connected through a
different CS (chip-select) line, right? I'm wondering if the firmware
running in secure mode has the ability to block access for a specific
CS line or if all CS lines have the same constraint. That will impact
the way you describe it in your DT (in one case the secure-region
property should be under the controller node, in the other case it
should be under the NAND chip node).