linux-kernel - Re: SATA exceptions with 2.6.20-rc5

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:	Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:46:51 +0100
From:	Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>, jeff@...zik.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, htejun@...il.com,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: SATA exceptions with 2.6.20-rc5

On 2007.01.15 22:17:24 +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> On 2007.01.14 17:43:53 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >with 2.6.20-rc{2,4,5} (no other tested yet) I see SATA exceptions quite
> > >often, with 2.6.19 there are no such exceptions. dmesg and lspci -v
> > >output follows. In the meantime, I'll start bisecting.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > >ata1.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
> > >ata1.00: cmd e7/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0 cdb 0x0 data 0 in
> > >         res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout)
> > >ata1: soft resetting port
> > >ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
> > >ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133
> > >ata1: EH complete
> > >SCSI device sda: 160086528 512-byte hdwr sectors (81964 MB)
> > >sda: Write Protect is off
> > >sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> > >SCSI device sda: write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't 
> > >support DPO or FUA
> > 
> > Looks like all of these errors are from a FLUSH CACHE command and the 
> > drive is indicating that it is no longer busy, so presumably done. 
> > That's not a DMA-mapped command, so it wouldn't go through the ADMA 
> > machinery and I wouldn't have expected this to be handled any 
> > differently from before. Curious..
> 
> My latest bisection attempt actually led to your sata_nv ADMA commit. [1]
> I've now backed out that patch from 2.6.20-rc5 and have my stress test
> running for 20 minutes now ("record" for a bad kernel surviving that
> test is about 40 minutes IIRC). I'll keep it running for at least 2 more
> hours.

Yep, that one seems to be guilty. 2.6.20-rc5 with that commit backed out
survived about 3 hours of testing, while the average was around 5
minutes for a failure, sometimes even before I could log in.
I took a look at the patch, but I can't really tell anything.
nv_adma_check_atapi_dma somehow looks like it should not negate its
return value, so that it returns 0 (atapi dma available) when
adma_enable was 1. But I'm not exactly confident about that either ;)
Will it hurt if I try to remove the negation?

Thanks,
Björn
-
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/