linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: Verify written data in paranoid mode

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: <d70952c1-e4ca-4f09-ac23-2ad13e0facc0@prolan.hu>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 14:29:40 +0200
From: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger
	<richard@....at>
CC: <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Vignesh
 Raghavendra" <vigneshr@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: Verify written data in paranoid mode

Hi,

On 2025. 05. 12. 11:14, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Why _mtd_verify and not mtd_verify?

Hm, no particular reason, I was thinking that since it's an "internal" 
function, like `_mtd_write_oob()`, it would get the underscore. But now 
that I think about it, there are many static functions already without 
this underscore. Should I change it?

On 2025. 05. 12. 11:45, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> I still have a hard time seeing the benefit of this.
> To me it looks like you're working around broken hardware.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard

Well, yes, in our case. But the point is, we have a strict requirement 
for data integrity, which is not unique to us I believe. I would think 
there are other industrial control applications like ours, which dictate 
a high data integrity.

Bence