linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45BFF3D6.9050605@rtr.ca>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:41:42 -0500
From:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
To:	"Eric D. Mudama" <edmudama@...il.com>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR

Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>
> Actually, it's possibly worse, since each failure in libata will 
> generate 3-4 retries.  With existing ATA error recovery in the drives, 
> that's about 3 seconds per retry on average, or 12 seconds per failure.  
> Multiply that by the number of blocks past the error to complete the 
> request..

It really beats the alternative of a forced reboot
due to, say, superblock I/O failing because it happened
to get merged with an unrelated I/O which then failed..
Etc..

Definitely an improvement.

The number of retries is an entirely separate issue.
If we really care about it, then we should fix SD_MAX_RETRIES.

The current value of 5 is *way* too high.  It should be zero or one.

Cheers
-
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/