linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: onfi: read parameter pages in one go

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: <20240516150925.5c65319b@xps-13>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 15:09:25 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Richard
 Weinberger <richard@....at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: onfi: read parameter pages in one go

Hi Sascha,

> > > > nand_read_data_op() is not supported by all NAND controllers.
> > > > nand_change_read_column_op() is not supported or at least is hard to
> > > > support by NAND controllers that use a different page layout than
> > > > expected by the NAND core.    
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry but RNDOUT is not so hard to support, and I know no NAND
> > > controller without this feature (I think even the first mxc controller
> > > supports it?). However, the command does not exist on small page NANDs
> > > (512 bytes).  
> > 
> > Nevermind, the ONFI spec (in all versions) states that RNDOUT are
> > allowed during parameter page reads, regardless of the size of the chip
> > (at least, that is not mentioned).  
> 
> I could imagine that there are no ONFI compliant chips with small pages,
> I don't know how to verify this though.
> 
> Anyway, this was a try to make reading the parameter pages a bit more
> straight forward. It seems the MXC NAND controller can't support reading
> three parameter pages in one go either. It works in software ECC mode
> because I reverse the syndome type layout the controller introduces, but
> it can't work with hardware ECC.

Hardware ECC should not be used at this step and should be disabled.
There should not be any ECC interference.

> So disregard this patch.

I now have a proposal, I'll send a v2 of my previous series.

Thanks,
Miquèl