From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756763AbcA2TXq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:23:46 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:34373 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756709AbcA2TXp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:23:45 -0500
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:23:41 -0800
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <zajec5@gmail.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bayi Cheng <bayi.cheng@mediatek.com>, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
        Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] mtd: spi-nor: disallow further writes to SR if WP#
 is low
Message-ID: <20160129192341.GD19540@google.com>
References: <1453960307-10181-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com>
 <1453960307-10181-5-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com>
 <CAAEAJfC6HM6M0ZJuEqj-=QUUs9+kHJB0m5bt2t9a-VYuiMPx4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160128175905.GA33340@google.com>
 <CAAEAJfDHRutp1R1nKxih-4CENBsjhmFaaTnqD7S6Vub+pqE05Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160128194836.GA63180@google.com>
 <CAAEAJfAPbLX9_OOWoUEsVOdUh2DOD+k425u7JkAanjUQxm8MWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAEAJfAPbLX9_OOWoUEsVOdUh2DOD+k425u7JkAanjUQxm8MWA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:22:34AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On 28 January 2016 at 16:48, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:24:50PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >> How about this:
> >>
> >> 1) ioctl(MEMLOCK) the entire flash (SR_SRWD is set)
> >> 2) ioctl(MEMUNLOCK) partially (SW_SRWD keeps set)
> >> 3) ioctl(MEMLOCK) the entire flash again

...

> >> but would (3)  be allowed given
> >> SW_SRWD is set?
> >
> > Yes, if /WP=1 (high).
> >
> 
> Right. So, after giving some more thought do this, I'd say it might
> make sense to clear SRWD only when unlocking the entire flash. If
> anything else, it would allow a path to disable hardware protection on
> the lock range?

Yes, that sounds fine to me, as it does allow removal of the HW
protection. So one could, for example, do:

0. bring /WP=1 (high)
1. unlock the whole flash
2. bring /WP=0 (low) -- flash is still unlocked
3. allow a one-time relocking of the flash via MEMLOCK
4. no more locking changes

I'll send out v2.

Brian