linux-kernel - Re: SATA exceptions with 2.6.20-rc5

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:34:48 +0100
From:	Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	htejun@...il.com
Subject: Re: SATA exceptions with 2.6.20-rc5

On 2007.01.14 19:22:51 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Robert Hancock wrote:
> >Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>with 2.6.20-rc{2,4,5} (no other tested yet) I see SATA exceptions quite
> >>often, with 2.6.19 there are no such exceptions. dmesg and lspci -v
> >>output follows. In the meantime, I'll start bisecting.
> >
> >...
> >
> >>ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
> >>ata1.00: cmd e7/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0 in
> >>         res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout)
> >>ata1: soft resetting port
> >>ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
> >>ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133
> >>ata1: EH complete
> >>SCSI device sda: 160086528 512-byte hdwr sectors (81964 MB)
> >>sda: Write Protect is off
> >>sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> >>SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
> >>support DPO or FUA
> >
> >Looks like all of these errors are from a FLUSH CACHE command and the 
> >drive is indicating that it is no longer busy, so presumably done. 
> >That's not a DMA-mapped command, so it wouldn't go through the ADMA 
> >machinery and I wouldn't have expected this to be handled any 
> >differently from before. Curious..
> 
> It's possible the flush-cache command takes longer than 30 seconds, if 
> the cache is large, contents are discontiguous, etc.  It's a 
> pathological case, but possible.
> 
> Or maybe flush-cache doesn't get a 30 second timeout, and it should...? 
>  (thinking out loud)

Bi-section led to commit 249e83fe839 which makes absolutely no sense to
me, just in case that anyone sees any problem with that commit.
I'll go and re-check a few of those commits that I marked as good.

Björn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/