linux-kernel - Re: Infinite retries reading the partition table

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: <1165515378.4698.24.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:16:17 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>
To:	ltuikov@...oo.com
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mdr@....com,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Infinite retries reading the partition table

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:24 -0800, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> NEEDS_RETRY _does_ terminate, after it exhausts the retries.  But since
> by the ASC value we know that no amount of retries is going to work,
> this chunk of the patch resolves it quicker, i.e. eliminates the
> "NEEDS_RETRY" pointless retries (given the SK/ASC combination).

I agree that it's useful behaviour.  However, the change header should
be something like "scsi_error: don't retry for unrecoverable medium
errors" not "infinite retries .."

> > > -	if (scsi_end_request(cmd, 1, good_bytes, result == 0) == NULL)
> > > +	if (good_bytes &&
> > > +	    scsi_end_request(cmd, 1, good_bytes, result == 0) == NULL)
> > >  		return;
> > 
> > What exactly is this supposed to be doing?  its result is identical to
> > the code it's replacing (because of the way scsi_end_request() processes
> > its second argument), so it can't have any effect on the stated problem.
> 
> I suppose this is true, but I'd rather it not even go in
> scsi_end_request as (cmd, uptodate=1, good_bytes=0, retry=0) and complete
> at the bottom as (cmd, uptodate=0, total_xfer, retry=0).

But, logically, this isn't part of the change set ... the behaviour
you're altering is unrelated to the change set details, so this piece
shouldn't be in.

James


-
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/