From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lilium.sigma-star.at ([109.75.188.150]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.89 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1erR7R-00077T-Da for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 16:31:46 +0000 From: Richard Weinberger To: Tim Harvey Cc: Artem Bityutskiy , Adrian Hunter , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Koen Vandeputte , Scott Bowman Subject: Re: Does modern UBI/UBIFS still suffer from the 'unstable bits issue'? Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 17:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: <9684795.NoKKx6Kvh2@blindfold> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Tim, Am Donnerstag, 1. M=E4rz 2018, 17:15:44 CET schrieb Tim Harvey: > Greetings, >=20 > I have a user with an IMX6 and raw NAND using UBI/UBIFS who has been > able to reproduce a NAND corruption: What does your user to reproduce this? > [ 10.611972] UBIFS (ubi0:2): background thread "ubifs_bgt0_2" started, = PID > 631 [ 10.634365] ubi0 warning: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while > reading 253952 bytes from PEB 2807:8192, read only 253952 bytes, retry [ = =20 > 10.657492] ubi0 warning: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading > 253952 bytes from PEB 2807:8192, read only 253952 bytes, retry [ =20 > 10.681137] ubi0 warning: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading > 253952 bytes from PEB 2807:8192, read only 253952 bytes, retry [ =20 > 10.704267] ubi0 error: ubi_io_read: error -74 (ECC error) while reading > 253952 bytes from PEB 2807:8192, read 253952 bytes >=20 > The kernel they are using is a bit out of date but does have > 'gpmi-nand: Handle ECC Errors in erased pages' [1] patch >=20 > I'm wondering if the 'unstable bits issue' [2] is still an issue or if > the UBI/UBFS Documentation is out of date and this has been resolved. > If it has been resolved, can anyone point me to the patches. This issue is highly theoretical and I never actually saw it in the wild.=20 Every single time someone claimed to suffer from that, it turned out to be= =20 something else. Currently UBI/UBIFS has no counter measurement, for the sai= d=20 reasons. This reminds me that we have to update the website... So did you verify (with your NAND vendor) that this really is the named iss= ue? Thanks, //richard