linux-kernel - Re: BUG: divide error in ubi_attach_mtd

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: <951e4cf7-a0ea-b3ec-931d-e6a394ddc2ab@huawei.com>
Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2023 17:13:18 +0800
From:   Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC:     Yu Hao <yhao016@....edu>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: divide error in ubi_attach_mtd_dev

在 2023/4/23 16:02, Richard Weinberger 写道:
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> Von: "chengzhihao1" <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
>>>> root@...kaller:~# cat /proc/mtd
>>>> dev:    size   erasesize  name
>>>> mtd0: 00020000 00001000 “mtdram test device”
>>>
>>> Hmm, mtdram should be fine, erasesize is not zero.
>>>
>>
>> I guess the zero-erasesize mtd device is dynamically generated in
>> runtime, after looking through the code, I find erasesize is
>> initiallized in specific flash driver and it won't be updated later(eg.
>> ioctl\sysctl). And some mtd devices may have zero erasesize, eg.
>> drivers/mtd/devices/mchp23k256.c[1]. Unfortunately, I don't know how to
>> load/simulate this mtd, maybe it requires a real device? If we load this
>> mtd device as ubi, it will trigger the problem?
> 
> Indeed. I guess qemu can emulate such chips.
> So better fix UBI to reject attaching of mtd's with erasesize being 0.
> (Please note, we cannot test for MTD_NO_ERASE, this one means there is no
> erase method).

Phram is an exception, it has erase function but is set flag 
'MTD_CAP_RAM'. May I interpret 'MTD_NO_ERASE' as erase function is not 
necessary?