Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: spi-nor: keep lock bits if they are non-volatile

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Tudor,

thanks for looking into this.

Am 2020-01-11 14:46, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Hi, Michael,

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 12:12:29 AM EET Michael Walle wrote:
Traditionally, linux unlocks the whole flash because there are legacy
devices which has the write protections bits set by default at startup. If you actually want to use the flash protection bits, eg. because there
is a read-only part for a bootloader, this automatic unlocking is
harmful. If there is no hardware write protection in place (usually
called WP#), a startup of the kernel just discards this protection.

I've gone through the datasheets of all the flashes (except the Intel
ones where I could not find any datasheet nor reference) which supports
the unlocking feature and looked how the sector protection was
implemented. The currently supported flashes can be divided into the
following two categories:
(1) block protection bits are non-volatile. Thus they keep their values
     at reset and power-cycle
(2) flashes where these bits are volatile. After reset or power-cycle,
     the whole memory array is protected.
     (a) some devices needs a special "Global Unprotect" command, eg.
         the Atmel AT25DF041A.
     (b) some devices require to clear the BPn bits in the status
         register.

Due to the reasons above, we do not want to clear the bits for flashes
which belong to category (1). Fortunately for us, the flashes in (2a)
and (2b) are compatible with each other in a sense that the "Global
Unprotect" command will clear the block protection bits in all the (2b)
flashes.

This patch adds a new flag to indicate the case (2). Only if we have
such a flash we perform a "Global Unprotect". Hopefully, this will clean
up "unlock the entire flash for legacy devices" once and for all.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Unlocking the flash at probe time was badly designed from the beginning, we should disable the write protection only
on request, to avoid destructive commands during power-up.

Breaking the backward compatibility is a no-go, and looks like you break it,
by not treating case (1).

Yes but that was the whole idea of this patch. So if I get you correct it is
not possible to change that even if:

(1) it was never intended that way. Eg. the original patch(es) were about removing the volatile write protection (which makes perfectly sense, even during probe time) to be able to write to the flash. But it was never intended
to disable the non-volatile write protection.

(2) it might be even harmful. It is still an open question wether the write to the non-volatile bits (even if it is the same value) might wear them out.
Unfortunately our FAE didn't answered yet..

(3) it makes the write protection utterly useless, because if you lock the flash it will be automatically unlocked after the next reboot. Even worse, the
user likely won't notice it.


We can indeed continue your idea and treat both (1)
and (2), thus disabling the write protection at power-up for all the flashes that we support as of now (in order to not break backward compat), and to not disable the block protection for the new flashes that will come. This means to have some point in time before which some less fortunate flashes don't benefit
of write protection at power-up, and after which the others benefit. I
wouldn't got this way, I prefer a generic method that handles all the flashes
in the same way.

I'd also prefer a solution for all existing flashes. But it seems that the rule above makes that almost impossible. Esp. this behaviour will then be there until
eternity.

I see three choices:
1/ dt prop which gives a per flash granularity. The prop is related to hw protection and there might be some chances to get this accepted, maybe it is
worth to involve Rob. But I tend to share Vignesh's opinion, this would
configure the flash and not describe it.

Still my preferred way. but also see below. But I wouldn't say it configures the
flash but describe that the user want to use the write protection.

2/ kconfig option, the behavior would be enforced on all the flashes. It would be similar to what we have with CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR_USE_4K_SECTORS. I did a patch to address this some time ago: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/
1133278/

Mhh. If we would combine this with this patch that would be at least a step into the right direction. At least a distro could enable that kernel option without breaking old boards/flashes. Because as outlined about you need that for flashes in category (2). Or you'd have to do a flash_unlock every time you want to write
to it. But that would be really a backwards incompatible change.. ;)


3/ module param, the behavior would be enforced on all the flashes.

Preferences or suggestions?

-michael

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/



[Index of Archives]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Photo]

  Powered by Linux