linux-kernel - AW: [PATCH] mtd: nand: realtek-ecc: relax OOB size check to minimum

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: <05ea01dc9796$2d228d80$8767a880$@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 19:26:56 +0100
From: <markus.stockhausen@....de>
To: "'Ahmed Naseef'" <naseefkm@...il.com>
Cc: <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	<richard@....at>,
	<vigneshr@...com>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: AW: [PATCH] mtd: nand: realtek-ecc: relax OOB size check to minimum

> Von: Ahmed Naseef <naseefkm@...il.com> 
> An: markus.stockhausen@....de
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nand: realtek-ecc: relax OOB size check to minimum
> ...
> > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed Naseef <naseefkm@...il.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Markus Stockhausen <markus.stockhausen@....de>
> > 
> > IIRC this should be the other way round.
> > 
> Could you clarify what you meant by "the other way round" — do you
> mean the ordering of the Suggested-by/Signed-off-by tags, or the
> attribution itself?

The one who had the patch in his/her hands last, must be on the bottom 
of the list. Chronological order so to say.

> Regarding the comment about the two known devices — I was planning
> to update it to something like:

    * It can run for arbitrary NAND flash chips with different block and OOB sizes. Currently there
    * are a few known devices in the wild that make use of this ECC engine
    * (Linksys LGS328C, LGS352C & Netlink HG323DAC). To keep compatibility with vendor firmware,
    * new modes can only be added when new data layouts have been analyzed. For now allow BCH6 on
    * flash with 2048 byte blocks and at least 64 bytes oob. Some vendors make use of
    * 128 bytes OOB NAND chips (e.g. Macronix MX35LF1G24AD) but only use BCH6 and thus the first
    * 64 bytes of the OOB area. In this case the engine leaves any extra bytes unused.

Small adaptions fromm y side in the comment above. Check for spelling 
mistakes and line lengths. With this good to go from my side.

Markus