linux-kernel - Re: is there any Hard-disk shock-protection for 2.6.18 and above?

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: <20061202115709.GC4030@ucw.cz>
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:57:09 +0000
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Schmid <chris@...lagmichtod.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: is there any Hard-disk shock-protection for 2.6.18 and above?

Hi!

> >> 1. Adds functions to ide-disk.c and scsi_lib.c that issue an idle
> >>    immediate with head unload or a standby immediate command as
> >>    appropriate and stop the queue on command completion.
> >
> > Can we get short Documentation/ patch?
> 
> Sure. Would Documentation/block/disk-protection.txt be an appropriate
> location?

Yes.

> >> +module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, "hdaps disk protection method  (0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby)");
> >
> > Should this be configurable by module parameter? Why not tell each
> > unload what to do?
> 
> As I understand, ATA specs expect drives to indicate whether they
> support the head unload feature of the idle immediate command or not.
> Unfortunately, a whole lot of them doesn't, well, mine doesn't anyway.
> Since I know that my drive does actually support head unloading, I'd
> like to tell the module so in order to prevent it from falling back to
> standby immediate. Applications that issue disk parking requests
> should not be bothered with this issue, in my opinion.

What if you have two disks and one supports head unload and second
does not?

> > Is /sys interface right thing to do?
> 
> Probably, you're right here. Since this feature is actually drive
> specific, it should not really be set globally as a libata or ide-disk
> parameter but specifically for each drive connected. Perhaps we should
> add another attribute to /sys/block/*/queue or enhance the scope of
> /sys/block/*/queue/protect?

Certainly better than current solution. Or maybe ioctl similar to wat
hdparm uses?
							Pavel
-- 
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
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/