linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: write regression since v4.17-rc1

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: <510adc50-79aa-3ed2-ab6f-9f9711d9bb23@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 01:13:56 +0900
From:   Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami.t@...il.com>
To:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com,
        miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, vigneshr@...com, richard@....at,
        "regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc:     Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, marek.vasut@...il.com,
        cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: write regression since v4.17-rc1

Hi Ahmad-san,

On 2022/03/08 18:44, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hello Tokunori,
>
> On 06.03.22 16:49, Tokunori Ikegami wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022/03/04 20:11, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> Hello Tokunori-san,
>>>
>>> On 20.02.22 13:22, Tokunori Ikegami wrote:
>>>> Hi Ahmad-san,
>>>>
>>>> Could you please try the version 2 patch attached for the error case?
>>>> This version is to check the DQ true data 0xFF by chip_good().
>>> I had a similar patch locally as well at first. I just tested yours
>>> and I can't reproduce the issue.
>> Thanks for your support.
>> Sorry if possible could you please retest the attached the patch again since this fixed the version 1 patch maintainer review comments?
> Works good.
>
> Tested-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Thank you so much for your test.
>
>>>> But I am not sure if this works or not since the error is possible to be caused by Hi-Z 0xff on floating bus or etc.
>>> That it works for me could be because of Hi-Z 0xff, which is why
>>> decided against it.
>> I see.
>>>>>>>> What seems to work for me is checking if chip_good or chip_ready
>>>>>>>> and map_word is equal to 0xFF. I can't justify why this is ok though.
>>>>>>>> (Worst case bus is floating at this point of time and Hi-Z is read
>>>>>>>> as 0xff on CPU data lines...)
>>>>>>> Sorry I am not sure about this.
>>>>>>> I thought the chip_ready() itself is correct as implemented as the data sheet in the past.
>>>>>>> But it did not work correctly so changed to use chip_good() instead as it is also correct.
>>>>>> What exactly in the datasheet makes you believe chip_good is not appropriate?
>>>>> I just mentioned about the actual issue behaviors as not worked chip_good() on S29GL964N and not worked chip_ready() on MX29GL512FHT2I-11G before etc.
>>>>> Anyway let me recheck the data sheet details as just checked it again quickly but needed more investigation to understand.
>>>> As far as I checked still both chip_good() and chip_ready() seem correct but still the root cause is unknown.
>>>> If as you mentioned the issue was cased by the DQ true data 0xFF I am not sure why the read work without any error after the write operation.
>>>> Also if the error was caused by the Hi-Z 0xff on floating bus as mentioned I am not sure why the read work without any error after the write operation with chip_ready().
>>>> Sorry anyway the root cause is also unknown when the write operation was changed to use chip_good() instead of chip_ready().
>>> I've be ok with v1 then. Restores working behavior for me and shouldn't break others.
>> Noted but still I am thinking the version 2 patch to check 0xff seems better than to use chip_ready() so let me consider this again later.
> The original version has less room for surprise as it restores previously
> working behavior. Assuming 0xFF to be good without backing from documentation
> is more risky IMO.
The change to check 0xFF can be limited for the S29GL064N chip do you 
have any comment about this?
Just attached the patch changed as so and thinking to send the patch as 
version 3 to the maintainer if you are okay.

Regards,
Ikegami

>
> Thanks for your continued support,
> Ahmad
>
>> Regards,
>> Ikegami
>>
>>> Cheers and thanks again,
>>> Ahmad
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ikegami
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ikegami
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Ahmad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
View attachment "v3-0001-mtd-cfi_cmdset_0002-Change-chip_good-to-check-DQ-.patch" of type "text/plain" (5504 bytes)