linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

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, 11 Sep 2008 14:28:47 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:01:00 +0200, Tejun Heo said:
> Ah.. just one more thing.
> 
> I think it would be easier on the application if the written timeout
> value is cropped if it's over the maximum instead of failing the
> write.

Which is better, failing the write so the application *knows* there is a
problem, or letting the application proceed with a totally incorrect idea of
what the value is set to?

For instance, what happens if the program tries to set 100, it's silently
clamped to 10, and it then tries to set a timer for itself to '90% of the
value'?  It might be in for an unpleasant surprise when it finds out that
it's overshot by 81....

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped