linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Enable locking for n25q00a

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: <mafs0ecreontu.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:15:09 +0200
From: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,  Pratyush Yadav
 <pratyush@...nel.org>,  Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>,
  linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,  Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
  Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Enable locking for n25q00a

On Mon, Oct 06 2025, Sean Anderson wrote:

> The datasheet for n25q00a shows that the status register has the same
> layout as for n25q00, so use the same flags to enable locking support.
> These flags should have been added back in commit 150ccc181588 ("mtd:
> spi-nor: Enable locking for n25q128a11"), but they were removed by the
> maintainer...

This makes it sound like the maintainer did something wrong, which is
not true. Tudor had a good reason for removing them. Jungseung did not
have the flash at hand and Tudor didn't want to apply patches that
weren't tested. Both were in agreement for removing the n25q00a changes.

If you are going to mention that commit, then mention the full context,
and then also mention what has changed since that makes it possible to
add those changes back in. Having tested them on the real hardware for
example.

>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
> ---
> Tested with a mt25qu01gbbb, which shares the same flash ID.

Ughh, is this another case of flash ID reuse? Do mt25qu and n25q00a
flashes behave exactly the same and only have two names? If not, then
how do you know if n25q00a will also work with these changes?

>
>  drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
> index 187239ccd549..17c7d6322508 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/micron-st.c
> @@ -486,6 +486,8 @@ static const struct flash_info st_nor_parts[] = {
>  		.id = SNOR_ID(0x20, 0xbb, 0x21),
>  		.name = "n25q00a",
>  		.size = SZ_128M,
> +		.flags = SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_HAS_TB | SPI_NOR_4BIT_BP |
> +			 SPI_NOR_BP3_SR_BIT6,
>  		.no_sfdp_flags = SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ,
>  		.mfr_flags = USE_FSR,
>  		.fixups = &n25q00_fixups,

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav