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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:52:04 -0500 From: "Monty Montgomery" <monty@...h.org> To: ltuikov@...oo.com Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>, dougg@...que.net, "Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>, "Brice Goglin" <Brice.Goglin@...-lyon.org>, "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, "Gregor Jasny" <gjasny@...glemail.com>, "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@...ox.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3 system freezes when ripping with cdparanoia at ioctl(SG_IO) On 11/11/06, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@...oo.com> wrote: > --- Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:08:15PM -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > > P.S. I'd love to see SG_DXFER_TO_FROM_DEV completely ripped out > > > of sg.c, for obvious reasons. Can you not duplicate the resid "fix" > > > it provides into "FROM_DEV" -- do apps really rely on it? > > > > At the beginning of this thread it was mentioned cdparanio uses it. > > But in general we can't just rip out userland interfaces, we pretend > > to have a stable userspace abi (and except for the big sysfs mess that > > actually comes very close to the truth). > > The more reason to think things thorougly when introducing > new code and architecture into a kernel. It was introduced for a good reason, and that reason is still relevant today. Cdparanoia is not using it gratuitously. The only problem is that the implementation had a bug (well, at least two bugs) and only sg ever implemented it correctly. Had block and sata implemente dit correctly, we'd not be having this discussion. Or you can blame a lower level layer for having no way to inform mid-level drivers that DMA only completed a partial transfer. "but anyway"... This lockup was happening using SATA through the block layer, or does SATA implement its own version of the ioctl? Back when I was testing my probing code, the buggy kernel would reject the request, not lock up-- did a change make it inot 2.6.18 or later that causes a lockup instead? (I never tested with SATA cdroms, as I don't have any. I tested with IDE and SCSI and saw correct or detectable behavior) Monty - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists