linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-qpic-snand: fix calculating of ECC OOB regions' properties

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: <93403461-c0b2-4c0c-91b3-8cbd4c1c5ebe@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:04:22 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@...cinc.com>,
        Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>,
        Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-qpic-snand: fix calculating of ECC OOB regions'
 properties

On 8/4/25 9:22 AM, Gabor Juhos wrote:
> Hi Konrad,
> 
> 2025. 08. 01. 13:56 keltezéssel, Konrad Dybcio írta:
>> On 7/31/25 8:11 PM, Gabor Juhos wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-qpic-snand.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-qpic-snand.c
>>> @@ -213,8 +213,16 @@ static int qcom_spi_ooblayout_ecc(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
>>>  	if (section > 1)
>>>  		return -ERANGE;
>>>  
>>> -	oobregion->length = qecc->ecc_bytes_hw + qecc->spare_bytes;
>>> -	oobregion->offset = mtd->oobsize - oobregion->length;
>>> +	if (!section) {
>>> +		oobregion->offset = 0;
>>> +		oobregion->length = qecc->bytes * (qecc->steps - 1) +
>>> +				    qecc->bbm_size;
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		oobregion->offset = qecc->bytes * (qecc->steps - 1) +
>>> +				    qecc->bbm_size +
>>> +				    qecc->steps * 4;
>>> +		oobregion->length = mtd->oobsize - oobregion->offset;
>>> +	}
>>
>> How about
>>
>> if (section == 0) {
>> } else if (section == 1) {
>> } else { return -ERANGE }
>>
>> ?
> 
> The current way follows the implementation in the qcom_nandc driver, so it makes
> it easier to compare the two, but it can be changed of course.
> 
> However, since the 'section' parameter is an integer can we agree up on using a
> switch statement instead of multiple ifs?

That works too

Konrad