linux-kernel - [PATCH] Re: [bug] ata subsystem related crash with latest -git

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:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:42:46 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Re: [bug] ata subsystem related crash with latest -git

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> That should work as well. WRT ata_sg_is_last(), if we go ahead with my
>>> recent sg chaining updates, we can keep the test as it would be a single
>>> conditional and not require any looping.
>>> Let me know when you have tested this!
>> The patch I attached to the last email got both sata_mv test boxes working 
>> reliably (so far).
>>
>> I worked up a patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() (plus the max_phys_segments 
>> sata_mv fix), see attached.  I'm thinking this is what I like to see in 
>> upstream.
> 
> Great!
> 
>> Of course, this doesn't explain why ata_sg_is_last() was broken, but since 
>> it's working _and_ slightly more efficient, I don't really care :)
> 
> Tomo and I agreed to kill sg_last() a few days ago anyways, so this is
> perfectly fine with me.

Yep, the [attached] patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() is working here on 
both machines that were previously croaking.

It would be nice to get pdc_adma, sata_sil24 and ipr it-works test done, 
but IMO the patch is pretty straightforward and should be OK.

	Jeff



View attachment "patch" of type "text/plain" (5650 bytes)