linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] drivers/block/mtip32xx: Adding new driver mtip32xx

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:	Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:45:00 -0600
From:	Asai Thambi S P <asamymuthupa@...ron.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	"Sam Bradshaw (sbradshaw)" <sbradshaw@...ron.com>,
	"alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
	"jmoyer@...hat.com" <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drivers/block/mtip32xx: Adding new driver mtip32xx

On 9/30/2011 7:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 10:58:01AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>  - handling of REQ_FUA / REQ_FLUSH requests is completely broken.
>>>    There is a weird barrier flag to mtip_hw_submit_io which set the
>>>    hwardware FUA bit if the FLUSH bit is set on a request.
>>>    Please take a look at how this should be handled, the
>>>    Documentation/block/writeback_cache_control.txt file is the canonical
>>>    resource.  Implementing your driver at the make_request layer
>>>    unfortunately means you will have to do all the hard work yourself.
>>
>> I noticed both of these flush/fua problems too and have fixed them up.
> 
> I sitll can't find anything doing that in your tree while all kinds of
> other patches are in.  In fact I can't find a place that sends
> ATA_CMD_FLUSH/ATA_CMD_FLUSH_EXT commands, not the required queue
> draining for it.
> 
> And this stuff really makes me nervous - we get a driver for a new,
> expensive high end device and there seems absolutely no concern for
> data integrity, or testing of it.
> 
> Or does the device not even have a volatile cache at all, and we could
> just remove the FUA code?  In this case it should be clearly documented
> in the driver.

At present there is no write back cache in the device, making
appropriate changes in the code.

-- 
Regards,
Asai Thambi
--
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/