> -----Original Message----- > From: Linux-nvdimm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 6:43 PM > To: Jiang, Dave <[email protected]>; Williams, Dan J > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Schofield, Alison <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 09/12] nfit/libnvdimm: add support for issue secure > erase > DSM to Intel nvdimm > > > Related topic: a flush is also necessary before sending the secure erase or > unlock > command. Otherwise, there could be dirty write data that gets written by the > concluding flush (overwriting the now-unlocked or just-erased data). For > unlock > during boot, you might assume that no writes having occurred yet, but that > isn't > true for secure erase on demand. Flushing before both commands is safest. >
I was wondering this too. Is it handled by the fact the DIMM must be disabled to do a secure erase? I'm assuming that means the namespace that the DIMM is a part of also must be disabled first? Then no further writes can occur and provided that dirty write data is flushed when the namespace is disabled, it should be safe to issue a secure erase. Thanks Juston _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
