linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] PATCH to fix rescan_partitions to return errors properly

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]

Message-ID: <452695CE.8080901@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:43:42 -0700
From:	Suzuki K P <suzuki@...ibm.com>
To:	Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>
CC:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, andmike@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] PATCH to fix rescan_partitions to return errors properly
  - take 2

Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 01:32:34PM -0700, Suzuki Kp wrote:
> 
>>Btw, do you think it is a good idea to let the other partition checkers 
>>run, even if one of them has failed ?
> 
> 
> Yes, just let them run. Partition information doesn't need to be on the
> very first sector of the drive. If the first sector is bad and the
> partition table for your funky XYZ partition table format lives on the
> tenth sector, then a checker that checks the first sector would fail
> and prevent your checker from running.
> 
> OTOH: having ten partition checkers check the same bad first sector
> doesn't really speed up the partion check process (for that reason we
> disable partition checking for drives we get for recovery). A way to
> solve that would be to keep a list of bad sectors: if the first checker
> finds a bad sector, it notes it down in the list so the next checker
> wouldn't have to try to read that particular sector. Maybe that's too
> much work to do in kernel and we'd better move the partition checking
> to userland.
> 
> 
>>Right now, the check_partition runs the partition checkers in a 
>>sequential manner, until it finds a success or an error.
> 
> 
> I think it's best not to change the current behaviour and let all
> partition checkers run, even if one of them failed due to device
> errors. I wouldn't mind if the behaviour changed like you propose,
> though.
> 
At present, the partition checkers doesn't run, if one of the preceeding 
checker has reported an error ! *But*, some of the checkers doesn't 
report the I/O error which they came across! So, this may let others 
run. Thats not we want, right. We would like them to return I/O errors, 
and and the check_partition should let other partition checkers continue.

Comments ?

Thanks,

Suzuki
> 
> Erik
> 

-
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/