linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM

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:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:13:21 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Ric Wheeler <ric@....com>, "Eric D. Mudama" <edmudama@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, dougg@...que.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR

James Bottomley wrote:
>
> For the MD case, this is what REQ_FAILFAST is for.

I cannot find where SCSI honours that flag.  James?

And for that matter, even when I patch SCSI so that it *does* honour it,
I don't actually see the flag making it into the SCSI layer from above.

And I don't see where/how the block layer takes care when considering
merge FAILFAST/READA requests with non FAILFAST/READA requests.
To me, it looks perfectly happy to add non-FAILFAST/READA bios
to a FAILFAST request, risking data loss if a lower-layer decides
to honour the FAILFAST/READA flags.

So it's a pretty Good Thing(tm) that SCSI doesn't currently honour it. ;)

-
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/