linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] mtd: improve block2mtd + airoha parser

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: <20240812132527.GB23655@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:25:27 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Joern Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] mtd: improve block2mtd + airoha parser

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:17:55PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Is this supported in mainline Linux? MTD handles the bad blocks and the
> bad block tables, so I don't understand how this hardware feature can
> live together with MTD.
> 
> Anyway, you are talking about MMCs, I don't understand why there are
> bad blocks, nor what is checking them and when. This is all still very
> fuzzy to me, I'm sorry.

Yes.  The idea of using block2mtd for anything but development seems
a bit odd to say it politely.  Using it to reinvent bad block management
on top of a block device that needs to do that as one of it's fundamental
functions seems extremely odd.