Hi, Akinobu Mita wrote: > 2014/1/23 Lothar Waßmann <l...@karo-electronics.de>: > > Hi, > > > > Akinobu Mita wrote: > >> 2014/1/22 Lothar Waßmann <l...@karo-electronics.de>: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Is anyone taking care of this? > >> > > >> > Lothar Waßmann wrote: > >> >> When using prandom_bytes_state() it is critical to use the same block > >> >> size in all invocations that are to produce the same random sequence. > >> >> Otherwise the state of the PRNG will be out of sync if the blocksize > >> >> is not divisible by 4. > >> >> This leads to bogus verification errors in several tests which use > >> >> different block sizes to initialize the buffer for writing and > >> >> comparison. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Lothar Waßmann <l...@karo-electronics.de> > >> >> --- > >> >> drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > >> >> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c b/drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c > >> >> index 2e9e2d1..72c7359 100644 > >> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c > >> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/tests/oobtest.c > >> >> @@ -213,8 +213,15 @@ static int verify_eraseblock_in_one_go(int ebnum) > >> >> int err = 0; > >> >> loff_t addr = ebnum * mtd->erasesize; > >> >> size_t len = mtd->ecclayout->oobavail * pgcnt; > >> >> + int i; > >> >> + > >> >> + for (i = 0; i < pgcnt; i++) > >> >> + prandom_bytes_state(&rnd_state, &writebuf[i * use_len], > >> >> + use_len); > >> >> + if (len % use_len) > >> >> + prandom_bytes_state(&rnd_state, &writebuf[i * use_len], > >> >> + len % use_len); > >> >> > >> >> - prandom_bytes_state(&rnd_state, writebuf, len); > >> >> ops.mode = MTD_OPS_AUTO_OOB; > >> >> ops.len = 0; > >> >> ops.retlen = 0; > >> > >> I would rather fix the use of prandom_bytes_state() in write_eraseblock() > >> than fix in verify_eraseblock_in_one_go(). > >> > > Why and how? > > I thought that it could reduce calls of prandom_bytes_state() and > it makes code simpler than increasing calls. > > > write_whole_device() (which calls write_eraseblock()) is used multiple > > times with different verification methods (all blocks in one go or each > > block individually). > > If prandom_state_bytes() in write_eraseblock() would be changed, that > > function would have to know, how the block are going to be checked > > lateron to know how to set up the writebuffer. > > Instead of calling prandom_bytes_state() in the for loop in > write_eraseblock(), call prandom_bytes_state() at once before going > into the loop and use correct offset in writebuf in the loop. > Although, we also need to fix verify_eraseblock() in the same way. > > Doesn't that fix this problem? > Of course one could fix it that way, but that would be a much more invasive change that also needs more testing.
Lothar Waßmann -- ___________________________________________________________ Ka-Ro electronics GmbH | Pascalstraße 22 | D - 52076 Aachen Phone: +49 2408 1402-0 | Fax: +49 2408 1402-10 Geschäftsführer: Matthias Kaussen Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 4996 www.karo-electronics.de | i...@karo-electronics.de ___________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/