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: <CA+GyqebFpav_ixDyp84-XA2WcQdrm_t6nfaKckm98tt5MpM2EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 20:04:06 +0200
From: Zixun LI <admin@...iphile.com>
To: Ada Couprie Diaz <ada.coupriediaz@....com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, 
	Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, 
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, 
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	"SoC support'" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, 
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
Subject: Re: mtd: rawnand: atmel: ECC error after update to kernel 6.6

On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 5:49 PM Ada Couprie Diaz <ada.coupriediaz@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've written a small patch below that I think should fix the issue, but again
> I don't know if that's upstreamable as-is.
>
> > Best regards,
> > Zixun LI
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/19583ca584d6f574384e17fe7613dfaeadcdc4a6/drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c#L1058
> > [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/ffc253263a1375a65fa6c9f62a893e9767fbebfa/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/pmecc.c#L772
> >
> Hopefully that can help !
> Best regards,
> Ada
>

Hi Ada,
Thank you for looking into this. Internally I've written the same patch as
yours and it works fine.

What's more interesting is the issue happens depending on chip individual
difference or aging. Among 3 chips tested, two with date code of 1933 and
one with 2223. The 1st one has many ECC errors as in the mail, 2nd one
has less errors, while the 3rd one passed the nandtest without error.
Maybe that's why this issue is overlooked.

Best regards,
Zixun LI

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ