Peter Stuge wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 03:12:05AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Instead of locking the chip, should we put it back to the state it was before? Does this make sense?
Good question. Actually I don't see why it would matter at all, what matters is to unlock in order to erase or write.
I don't think any other part of flashrom bit twiddling does restore,
Yes. They all leave it open, as they do with the board enable and the chipset enable. This is a very high security risk.
I'm not sure it actually matters anywhere?
Well, "It's broken everywhere else"... I figured it matters to some extend, as you put the locking back in place. If you were inspired by the other chips, you would have let the protection open ;-)
I guess our policy is to leave bits unlocked.
Not a policy. If we want a policy, it can not be anything but "We leave the same way as we came"
Stefan