linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: at91: sama5d2: Fix PMERRLOC resource size

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:36:10 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <bbrezillon@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: at91: sama5d2: Fix PMERRLOC resource size

On 1/11/22 11:14 AM, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Hello,

Hi!

> 
> Am Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:09:33AM +0200 schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>> PMERRLOC resource size has been shrunk to 0x100,
> 
> What do mean with "has been shrunk"? It was introduced like this for
> sama5d2, sama5d3, and sama5d4 in the first place with d9c41bf30cf8c.

I meant has been shrunk until now.
I will reword this for better clarity, maybe s/"has been shrunk"/"was set".

> 
> FWIW, I had a look in the sama5d2, sama5d3 and sama5d4 series
> datasheets, and it seems sama5d2 differs from the two others here.

Indeed, this patch is for sama5d2 only. sama5d3 and sama5d4 PMERRLOC
registers fit in the 0x100 size, there's no need to update them.

> 
>> which resulted in
>> HSMC_ERRLOCx register being truncated to offset x = 21, causing
>> error correction to fail if more than 22 bit errors where 24 or
>> 32 bit error correction was supported.
>>
>> Fixes: d9c41bf30cf8 ("ARM: dts: at91: Declare EBI/NAND controllers")
> 
> This landed in 4.13. Is this fix needed for stable then? That would be
> 4.14, 4.19, 5.4, 5.10, and 5.15, right? Or is this covered by the
> fixes tag already?

Maybe indirectly. But best would be to add the following line according to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html

Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.14.x
Will add it. Cheers,
ta