[05.09.2012] Got Brickbug ? v1.2

Search This thread

greenlant

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2011
97
8
I'm saying avoid Samsung roms, absolutely. Yes, it is only the Samsung kernel. But, it is easier to just avoid the entire Samsung official ROMs for noobs.

The franco and speedmod kernels are stock (kinda) and they just disabled the MMC_Cap_erase code. So, they are pretty safe. If you HAVE to run a Samsung rom, you can flash one of these kernels. I was just making it easier on users.

Sorry for asking this, but I would be grateful for an answer from a "wise" person on this topic:

According to this app, I do have a vulnerable device. Today, eybee released v4 of his ICS RocketROM (Galaxy Note) and as I really miss the S-Note stuff, I would love to test it.

Is it correct that you suggest to stay away from that ROM? As far as I got the things right, there are safe kernel alternatives (e.g. franco), is this correct? So why isn´t there a flashable TouchWiz based ROM without the buggy kernel? Why isn´t e.g. francos kernel included from the beginning on?

I would be so glad to get some suggestions/help here :(
 

trell959

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2010
6,146
785
29
California
4cafe43d-738c-3336.jpg


Don't worry guys. If you're on a safe kernel, you have nothing to worry about. :)

Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
 

t00dy

Senior Member
May 4, 2011
155
26
Don't worry guys. If you're on a safe kernel, you have nothing to worry about. :)

Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium

is SiyahKernel v3.2.5.2 safe?? in the changelog there is: "Patch the firmware of certain Samsung emmc parts to fix a bug in the wear leveling code"
but in one version above (SiyahKernel v3.2.6.4) there is: "UPDATE: 29/5 wifi&mmc related fixes." I am asking this, because i have a hard bricked i9100 with installed v. 3.2.5.2, and i don't know it's because od eMMc or sth else!:confused:
 

andreww88

Senior Member
Aug 6, 2011
1,301
297
Mobile, AL
www.andrewsthoughts.net
You forgot to mention Siyah kernel is now safe as well on the S2..
On Siyah MMC_cap_erase = 0.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium

Because this is in the Note forum.....;)

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

Sorry for asking this, but I would be grateful for an answer from a "wise" person on this topic:

According to this app, I do have a vulnerable device. Today, eybee released v4 of his ICS RocketROM (Galaxy Note) and as I really miss the S-Note stuff, I would love to test it.

Is it correct that you suggest to stay away from that ROM? As far as I got the things right, there are safe kernel alternatives (e.g. franco), is this correct? So why isn´t there a flashable TouchWiz based ROM without the buggy kernel? Why isn´t e.g. francos kernel included from the beginning on?

I would be so glad to get some suggestions/help here :(

Flash that ROM and flash Franco or Speedmod kernel in CWM. Then you'll be safe. Don't wipe data before you flash franco or speedmod kernels though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greenlant

greenlant

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2011
97
8
Flash that ROM and flash Franco or Speedmod kernel in CWM. Then you'll be safe. Don't wipe data before you flash franco or speedmod kernels though.

One last question: with speedmod, there are two possibilies to flash: 1. via CWM, 2. via Odin.

Does it matter here as well, is it still "safer" to use odin or is it safe to use CWM as well (--> yellow triangle thing :))

Beside that: Thank you so much!
 

andreww88

Senior Member
Aug 6, 2011
1,301
297
Mobile, AL
www.andrewsthoughts.net
One last question: with speedmod, there are two possibilies to flash: 1. via CWM, 2. via Odin.

Does it matter here as well, is it still "safer" to use odin or is it safe to use CWM as well (--> yellow triangle thing :))

Beside that: Thank you so much!

Read the OP just to make sure.

But, you can use CWM and/or Mobile Odin. Flash the kernel with CWM. Reboot phone. When it comes up, open up settings, go to about phone, and look at kernel and see if you have it (just to double check and be safe). After that, you can wipe data if you need to.
 

Entropy512

Senior Recognized Developer
Aug 31, 2007
14,088
25,086
Owego, NY
It would be beneficial to provide more information on the brick bug to avoid some people getting unnecessarily scared (such as most I9100 users).

This bug requires three things for you to be in danger, and ALL of these conditions must be met for danger:
1) A defective eMMC chip/fwrev that is unable to handle eMMC ERASE commands (command 38) properly. (I'll provide a link with more detail on the nature of the bug later) - This condition is the one Chainfire's new app checks for. By the way, M8G2FA fwrev 0x11 (seen on some Kindle Fires) is also suspected of being defective.
2) A recovery binary that attempts to erase partitions when formatting them. Most ICS recovery binaries fit in this category, most Gingerbread recoveries do not attempt to perform an erase operation so are safe. Note that also, an affected update-binary in a ZIP could be a cause of problems too. (e.g. flashing a firmware that has an ICS update-binary and formats the partition could cause a problem even with a "safe" recovery.) So a kernel can be repacked with a "safe" CWM (such as the most recent CF-Root releases) but it will still only be partially safe.
3) A kernel that allows attempts to erase a partition to actually happen. (as opposed to reporting "not supported" and doing nothing.) - A common way of rendering a kernel safe is to remove MMC_CAP_ERASE from the capability flags in drivers/mmc/mshci.c

As of June 6, 2012, this is what I know as far as kernels that meet condition 3:
  • All GT-I9100 ICS leaks and official releases prior to July 2012 are SAFE (MMC_CAP_ERASE not present)
  • New GT-I9100 ICS leaks and official releases (starting in July 2012) are UNSAFE - That's right, Samsung ADDED the trigger conditions for this bug to newer releases such as XXLQ5. So much for "we're working on a fix"...
  • All kernels based on GT-I9100 ICS Update4 sources are SAFE (MMC_CAP_ERASE not present) - This includes all CM9 nightlies for SGH-I777, GT-I9100, and GT-N7000, all GT-I9100 custom kernels I am aware of, and all SGH-I777 custom kernels I am aware of
  • All GT-N7000 ICS leaks are UNSAFE
  • All GT-N7000 ICS official kernels are UNSAFE
  • All kernels built from the GT-N7000 sources are UNSAFE unless the following condition is met:
  • MMC_CAP_ERASE is removed from the capability flags in drivers/mmc/host/mshci.c - check the kernel features for this. Franco.kernel R3 and later and all Speedmod ICS releases are SAFE due to this.
  • All SHW-M250S/K/L ICS kernels are suspected to be UNSAFE
  • All SHW-M250S/K/L ICS source releases as of this date are UNSAFE (SHW-M250L Update4 was the cause of the SiyahKernel 3.1rc6 incident. Other Siyah releases are SAFE)
  • All SPH-D710 ICS releases as of this date are UNSAFE - Rumor has it that the official OTA may have a fixed kernel, but it is recommended to consider this kernel UNSAFE until source code is released and can be reviewed.
  • The SGH-I777 UCLD3 leak is UNSAFE, as is most likely every other leak for that device. Fortunately nearly everyone is using I9100 Update4-based custom kernels.
  • SGH-I727 and SGH-T989 ICS leaks are UNSAFE - However as these two devices use separate recovery and operational kernels, if you have a Gingerbread recovery/kernel, you should be safe regardless of what you are booting for normal operation.

It's hard to get ALL of the cases and evaluate them, but in general in terms of levels of danger (As of June 6, 2012 - this could change with time):
SPH-D710 users are in the most danger - They have no official ICS releases AND the I9100 Update4 source base can't be used to build a usable kernel for their device without major developer work
GT-N7000 users are second on the list - They are the only ones outside of Korea to receive official ICS updates that trigger the eMMC firmware defect. However, I9100 Update4 sources required only minor work to create "safe" kernels, and developers know the proper procedure for rendering the official N7000 Update3 source drop "safe"
SGH-I777 users are next - I777 leaks proved to be dangerous a month or so ago. However, the SGH-I777 required the least amount of work to be able to use the GT-I9100 Update4 source base, and as a result, with the exception of the leaks themselves, nearly all I777 ICS kernels are based off of safe source code bases.
GT-I9100 users are in the least danger - No leak, official binary release, or source code release for this device has been dangerous. Only one I9100 kernel has ever proven dangerous and that was quickly pulled by its developer.

I am not evaluating the SHW-M250S/K/L in the above list, as while I know their source and binaries are dangerous, the language/culture barrier means we have very little information on how this fiasco is panning out for those users.

UPDATE:
We have at least one confirmed report of this bug occurring with KYL00M fwrev 0x12 on a Samsung Skyrocket (SGH-I727) with their ICS leak kernels
In addition, Samsung Hercules (SGH-T989) has the same fwrev and I've been told that they have observed bricks of this type with their ICS leaks

UPDATE 2:
I've received an email from a contact at Samsung who has indicated they are working on some sort of fix to be deployed to devices with an "UNSAFE" configuration listed above. I have requested that I receive an explicit list of which binary builds contain this fix, as without that I cannot know for sure which builds are fixed and which are not. Fixes are not yet deployed to affected devices.

UPDATE 3:
So much for the claims of working on a fix above... Not only have fixes not been deployed to any kernel for any device I am aware of, but Samsung added the trigger conditions to the XXLQ5 build for GT-I9100. Yes, that is correct - a device previously unaffected by this bug is now UNSAFE.
 
Last edited:

Doekus

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2012
54
5
Gelderland
(sg2)

i have the bug, i also have installed ics stock buildnr; XWLPD kernel 3.0.15 XWLPD

Now my question is:confused:

what is smart... Do nothing and wait while samsung fix this? ( or can i brick it to, while waiting (not flash)

or flash a 'safe' rom:confused:. (if so tip about rom are welcome)

I just not one to brick my phone (i love myn beast:eek:).

Sorry for my questions i'm beginner/noob on the sg2
 

roger__van

Member
Apr 8, 2012
14
1
I installed the app and it says that my device it's in danger!!! but actually I have install all the ICS leaks for my Skyrocket and several custom roms and it's still alive.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2012-06-06-16-05-33.jpg
    Screenshot_2012-06-06-16-05-33.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 768

jeanmichel6

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2007
125
4
i have the bug, i also have installed ics stock buildnr; XWLPD kernel 3.0.15 XWLPD

Now my question is:confused:

what is smart... Do nothing and wait while samsung fix this? ( or can i brick it to, while waiting (not flash)

or flash a 'safe' rom:confused:. (if so tip about rom are welcome)

I just not one to brick my phone (i love myn beast:eek:).

Sorry for my questions i'm beginner/noob on the sg2

read de post above of yours... its clear that the sg2 are the less involved in this bug!
 

depakjan

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2008
437
38
Chennai
Wonder why the latest CF-Kernals are not deemed safe?, i am sure chainfire removed MMC_CAP_ERASE from his kernals, Entropy can you please add the 5.6 versions as safe?
 

wyllem

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2010
84
8
MIght Be helpfull

Would links to thee safe roms or a list would be helpful cause now im out of wack as to what to flash:confused::confused::confused::confused:
 

Entropy512

Senior Recognized Developer
Aug 31, 2007
14,088
25,086
Owego, NY
Wonder why the latest CF-Kernals are not deemed safe?, i am sure chainfire removed MMC_CAP_ERASE from his kernals, Entropy can you please add the 5.6 versions as safe?

See my comment about kernels that have patched recoveries with a dangerous kernel being only partially safe.

Chainfire removed the erase commands from his recovery - wiping and Nandroid restores should be safe due to this BUT when flashing other ZIPs, the update-binary within the zip is what matters. Flashing a ZIP on a CF-Root kernel can likely still trigger the damage.

CF-Root can never be rendered totally safe until Samsung officially acknowledges a bug and lists a kernel as fixed with removal of MMC_CAP_ERASE - We cannot remove this from a binary kernel, and I don't think there is any safe way to determine if it is enabled in a binary kernel.
 

vizdak

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2012
225
72
Mindanao
Whew!

Revision: 0x9
Unknown chip, don't know if dangerous. At least it isn't one of the chips known to be bad!
 

nyunyu

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2008
543
18
www.astronyu.com
Installed and saw my device is not safe.
Tried to uninstall and it been doing that for the whole hour..this brickbug has bug?

...Ok, now it says Uninstall not successful..

Clicked OK..

..Now it says Uninstall completed.

wtf?
 

Top Liked Posts

  • There are no posts matching your filters.
  • 424
    As you are all probably aware, the SGS2 and SGNote variants suffer from a bug that may brick your device when a certain erase method is used.

    A thread with a lot of background about this issue can be found here:
    http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1644364

    Attached is a simple APK that reads out your chip's type and CID, and lets you know if we know that chip is dangerous or safe.

    Just uninstall again after using.

    Most SGS2's and Note's have "bad" chips (its actually the firmware that's bad). This is only dangerous if your kernel is dangerous as well. Gingerbread kernels are usually OK, Samsung ICS kernels are usually (bad on Note, good on SGS2 if released before July), custom ICS kernels: look in the kernel's thread. This is a simplification. See Entropy512's excellent post with some further details about which kernels are what.

    Obviously, this comes "as-is", we're not responsible what you do with your device, etc. No rights can be derived from the output of the program!

    Internal data used:
    MAG4FA, VYL00M, or KYL00M fwrev 0x12 || 0x19 --> known bad
    MAG4FA, VYL00M, or KYL00M fwrev >= 0x25 --> probably safe
    MAG4FA, VYL00M, or KYL00M fwrev != 0x12 && != 0x19 && < 0x25 --> probably bad
    M8G2FA, MBG8FA, MCGAFA, VAL00M, VZL00M --> probably bad (mentioned in patch code)
    Everything else: unknown chip

    News - 08.06.2012
    Samsung: "Patches will be out in form of new official ROMs and also sourcecode releases after testing, which might take some time."

    Changelog
    05-09-2012 - v1.2
    - Added chips mentioned in patch code ( http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=31124285&postcount=785 )

    08.06.2012 - v1.1
    - fwrev 0x12 is also known bad

    (v1.0: 6750; v1.1: 34315)
    134
    It would be beneficial to provide more information on the brick bug to avoid some people getting unnecessarily scared (such as most I9100 users).

    This bug requires three things for you to be in danger, and ALL of these conditions must be met for danger:
    1) A defective eMMC chip/fwrev that is unable to handle eMMC ERASE commands (command 38) properly. (I'll provide a link with more detail on the nature of the bug later) - This condition is the one Chainfire's new app checks for. By the way, M8G2FA fwrev 0x11 (seen on some Kindle Fires) is also suspected of being defective.
    2) A recovery binary that attempts to erase partitions when formatting them. Most ICS recovery binaries fit in this category, most Gingerbread recoveries do not attempt to perform an erase operation so are safe. Note that also, an affected update-binary in a ZIP could be a cause of problems too. (e.g. flashing a firmware that has an ICS update-binary and formats the partition could cause a problem even with a "safe" recovery.) So a kernel can be repacked with a "safe" CWM (such as the most recent CF-Root releases) but it will still only be partially safe.
    3) A kernel that allows attempts to erase a partition to actually happen. (as opposed to reporting "not supported" and doing nothing.) - A common way of rendering a kernel safe is to remove MMC_CAP_ERASE from the capability flags in drivers/mmc/mshci.c

    As of June 6, 2012, this is what I know as far as kernels that meet condition 3:
    • All GT-I9100 ICS leaks and official releases prior to July 2012 are SAFE (MMC_CAP_ERASE not present)
    • New GT-I9100 ICS leaks and official releases (starting in July 2012) are UNSAFE - That's right, Samsung ADDED the trigger conditions for this bug to newer releases such as XXLQ5. So much for "we're working on a fix"...
    • All kernels based on GT-I9100 ICS Update4 sources are SAFE (MMC_CAP_ERASE not present) - This includes all CM9 nightlies for SGH-I777, GT-I9100, and GT-N7000, all GT-I9100 custom kernels I am aware of, and all SGH-I777 custom kernels I am aware of
    • All GT-N7000 ICS leaks are UNSAFE
    • All GT-N7000 ICS official kernels are UNSAFE
    • All kernels built from the GT-N7000 sources are UNSAFE unless the following condition is met:
    • MMC_CAP_ERASE is removed from the capability flags in drivers/mmc/host/mshci.c - check the kernel features for this. Franco.kernel R3 and later and all Speedmod ICS releases are SAFE due to this.
    • All SHW-M250S/K/L ICS kernels are suspected to be UNSAFE
    • All SHW-M250S/K/L ICS source releases as of this date are UNSAFE (SHW-M250L Update4 was the cause of the SiyahKernel 3.1rc6 incident. Other Siyah releases are SAFE)
    • All SPH-D710 ICS releases as of this date are UNSAFE - Rumor has it that the official OTA may have a fixed kernel, but it is recommended to consider this kernel UNSAFE until source code is released and can be reviewed.
    • The SGH-I777 UCLD3 leak is UNSAFE, as is most likely every other leak for that device. Fortunately nearly everyone is using I9100 Update4-based custom kernels.
    • SGH-I727 and SGH-T989 ICS leaks are UNSAFE - However as these two devices use separate recovery and operational kernels, if you have a Gingerbread recovery/kernel, you should be safe regardless of what you are booting for normal operation.

    It's hard to get ALL of the cases and evaluate them, but in general in terms of levels of danger (As of June 6, 2012 - this could change with time):
    SPH-D710 users are in the most danger - They have no official ICS releases AND the I9100 Update4 source base can't be used to build a usable kernel for their device without major developer work
    GT-N7000 users are second on the list - They are the only ones outside of Korea to receive official ICS updates that trigger the eMMC firmware defect. However, I9100 Update4 sources required only minor work to create "safe" kernels, and developers know the proper procedure for rendering the official N7000 Update3 source drop "safe"
    SGH-I777 users are next - I777 leaks proved to be dangerous a month or so ago. However, the SGH-I777 required the least amount of work to be able to use the GT-I9100 Update4 source base, and as a result, with the exception of the leaks themselves, nearly all I777 ICS kernels are based off of safe source code bases.
    GT-I9100 users are in the least danger - No leak, official binary release, or source code release for this device has been dangerous. Only one I9100 kernel has ever proven dangerous and that was quickly pulled by its developer.

    I am not evaluating the SHW-M250S/K/L in the above list, as while I know their source and binaries are dangerous, the language/culture barrier means we have very little information on how this fiasco is panning out for those users.

    UPDATE:
    We have at least one confirmed report of this bug occurring with KYL00M fwrev 0x12 on a Samsung Skyrocket (SGH-I727) with their ICS leak kernels
    In addition, Samsung Hercules (SGH-T989) has the same fwrev and I've been told that they have observed bricks of this type with their ICS leaks

    UPDATE 2:
    I've received an email from a contact at Samsung who has indicated they are working on some sort of fix to be deployed to devices with an "UNSAFE" configuration listed above. I have requested that I receive an explicit list of which binary builds contain this fix, as without that I cannot know for sure which builds are fixed and which are not. Fixes are not yet deployed to affected devices.

    UPDATE 3:
    So much for the claims of working on a fix above... Not only have fixes not been deployed to any kernel for any device I am aware of, but Samsung added the trigger conditions to the XXLQ5 build for GT-I9100. Yes, that is correct - a device previously unaffected by this bug is now UNSAFE.
    23
    Hi fellow Androidians, how about a worldwide petition letter to Samsung. Below I've made a draft, feel free to amend accordingly.

    Yeah, because *that* is going to help :rolleyes:

    We already know Samsung is working on this. We know how to fix the problem in custom kernels. We know Samsung replaces devices that are bricked this way.

    Also, technically the chip isn't faulty, the chip's firmware is faulty. The problem is that updating the firmware on those chips is a really nasty affair you really don't want end-users to be doing, unless it has gone through some very rigorous testing.

    What possible use would it be to exchange all the Note's out there with new models with fixed firmwares, if they can just as well release a software update (that we know they are working on) that accomplishes the same thing ?

    What exactly do you want to happen here, aside from wasting a metric ****ton of Samsung's money, which we'll all have to pay extra on the next device to recuperate these funds ?

    This problem is something us "tweakers" need to be aware of for now, until it is fixed. Normal users will rarely if ever even run into this issue, and if they do, Samsung will replace the unit under warranty. Us tweakers have been warned, we know how to work around it, and we know a fix is coming - what could you possibly want beyond that ?
    18
    is this something you want us to run to collect the results or is it for our own information? :)

    It is for your own information... there's no testing involved or anything, it just pulls some info from the device, and shows it on screen for you.
    10
    It's important to understand that the source of this problem is bad firmware in the eMMC chip. There is nothing technically wrong with the kernel itself. The eMMC claims to support a method of erasure that causes it to write bad data when it's used.

    To achieve safety, you either fix the chip so that it supports the method it claims to properly or avoid using that method of erasure.

    Cyanogenmod 9 is safe because it doesn't erase using that method. They use their own kernel built from their own source code.

    Samsung ICS kernels are not safe because they call the best method the eMMC claims to support when erasing, which is bugged within the chip's firmware.

    Anyone who uses the official Samsung ICS kernel or the ICS leaks of Samsung's kernel are at risk. Chainfire's kernel is risky because Chainfire uses Samsung's official kernels and adds Clockwork Mod to them at the binary level. He doesn't have source to modify to make his kernels safe. Samsung must make their kernel safe before Chainfire can release a safe one himself. What Chainfire has done is modify the recovery so that it won't ask the kernel to erase the eMMC in a potentially dangerous way, but it won't stop sources other than that recovery from asking for a potentially bricking erase operation because the kernel hasn't been modified and will still do it if asked to.

    Because we know something of which versions of the eMMC chip are affected by this flaw, we can determine if a user is at risk simply by asking the chip to identify itself.

    Decompiling a kernel is a completely different ball of wax. I wouldn't hold my breath for a tool that can do that and identify if your kernel is patched or not. Besides that, the source of the problem is now known with certainty and can be avoided by not flashing Samsung kernels until Samsung gets off their lazy butt and fixes theirs, or provides the code that can be used to fix the eMMC chip that is the source of all our troubles.