Hi Álvaro,
Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 May 2020
09:24:32 +0200:
> Hi Miquèl
>
> > El 12 may 2020, a las 9:16, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> >
> > Hi Álvaro,
> >
> > Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 May 2020
> > 08:51:11 +0200:
> >
> >> The current code checks that the whole OOB area is erased.
> >> This is a problem when JFFS2 cleanmarkers are added to the OOB, since it will
> >> fail due to the usable OOB bytes not being 0xff.
> >> Correct this by only checking that data and ECC bytes aren't 0xff.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 02b88eea9f9c ("mtd: brcmnand: Add check for erased page bitflips")
> >> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v3: Fix commit log and merge nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk calls.
> >> v2: Add Fixes tag
> >>
> >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> >> index e4e3ceeac38f..80fe01f03516 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> >> @@ -2018,8 +2018,9 @@ static int brcmnand_read_by_pio(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
> >> static int brcmstb_nand_verify_erased_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> >> struct nand_chip *chip, void *buf, u64 addr)
> >> {
> >> + struct mtd_oob_region oobecc;
> >> int i, sas;
> >> - void *oob = chip->oob_poi;
> >> + void *oob;
> >> int bitflips = 0;
> >> int page = addr >> chip->page_shift;
> >> int ret;
> >> @@ -2035,11 +2036,19 @@ static int brcmstb_nand_verify_erased_page(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.steps; i++, oob += sas) {
> >> + for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.steps; i++) {
> >> ecc_chunk = buf + chip->ecc.size * i;
> >> - ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(ecc_chunk,
> >> - chip->ecc.size,
> >> - oob, sas, NULL, 0,
> >> +
> >> + if (mtd->ooblayout->ecc(mtd, i, &oobecc)) {
> >
> > Please use the mtdcore.c's helpers
> > (mtd_ooblayout_set/get_data/free/ecc/bytes).
> >
> > Also, what are you trying to discriminate with the return code of the
> > function? Shouldn't this function "always" work?
>
> Just making sure it doesn’t return an ERANGE in case chip->ecc.size doesn’t match the sections from mtd->ooblayout->ecc, which shouldn’t happen, so I think we can remove that...
The style we prefer for error checking is:
ret = function();
if (ret)
do someting;
instead of:
if (function())
Anyway, I really don't know if it can happen or not. I suppose it does.
What I don't understand is your "oob = chip->oob_poi + oobecc.offset".
If you expect an error, then you should not update this pointer, right?
Don't you need to use 2 * i instead of i here? Following your other
contribution, sections are distributed like "data/ecc/data/ecc/etc".
>
> >
> >> + oob = NULL;
> >> + oobecc.length = 0;
> >> + } else {
> >> + oob = chip->oob_poi + oobecc.offset;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(ecc_chunk, chip->ecc.size,
> >> + oob, oobecc.length,
> >> + NULL, 0,
> >> chip->ecc.strength);
> >
> > As I told you, this helper takes "maid data" then "spare area" then
> > "ecc bytes". The names are pretty important here as you want to avoid
> > checking the spare OOB bytes on purpose, so maybe you could have more
> > meaningful names and call "ecc" instead of "oob" the ecc region?
>
> Actually I thought you meant the commit log, not the code itself...
No problem ;) I meant both actually, And I think you should name the
oob pointer ecc_bytes.
>
> >
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Miquèl
>
> Regards,
> Álvaro.
>
Thanks,
Miquèl
