linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mtd: spinand: micron: correct parameters

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]

Message-ID: <28c91187-1fcc-9ea1-90d5-c95e10378479@sberdevices.ru>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 20:36:39 +0300
From:   Martin Kurbanov <mmkurbanov@...rdevices.ru>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
CC:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <kernel@...rdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mtd: spinand: micron: correct parameters

Hi Miquel,

On 17.08.2023 10:53, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> It's not the first time we face this issue and the first approach we
> used was to "fix" the OOB layout to include all free bytes (not only
> protected bytes), which had the nice side-effect of allowing to write
> the cleanmarker in an ECC-free area and allow that chip to be used with
> JFFS2. This is indeed not a proper solution and I agree we should have
> a system-wide solution.
> 
>> Also I wonder if JFFS2 should instead write the cleanmarker with ECC
>> being turned of explicitly.
> The real question is, why would you still want to use JFFS2 on
> SPI-NAND? UBI is meant for that. JFFS2 was designed with NORs in mind,
> it can be used on small NAND chips because UBI is a bit glutton wrt,
> but I doubt we still have "small" SPI-NANDs on the market which require
> JFFS2 anymore. Do we?

Unfortunately, we cannot use UBI because we have a small flash SPI-NAND
and we need a small partition.

> Anyhow, if people want JFFS2 on NANDs, I agree we should maybe change
> how JFFS2 works and force raw accesses when it comes to writing the
> cleanmarker, because there is no knowledge of what is ECC protected or
> not in the current OOB layouts. I however have no idea of the possible
> side-effects, I've never looked into JFFS2 so deeply.

Then I can prepare a patchset that will disable cleanamarkers on the
compile time.
And today I will send the second version of this patch without fixes
to the OOB area.

-- 
Best Regards,
Martin Kurbanov