linux-kernel - Re: libata reset-seq merge broke sata

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:	Sat, 12 May 2007 12:49:28 +0900
From:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, garyhade@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: libata reset-seq merge broke sata_sil on sh

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:39:20AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > Bumping the hardreset delay up does indeed fix it, I've had to bump it up
> > to 1200 before it started working (at 600 it still fails):
> > 
> > [    0.967379] scsi0 : sata_sil
> > [    0.970425] scsi1 : sata_sil
> > [    0.973298] ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xfd000280 ctl 0xfd00028a bmdma 0xfd000200 irq 0
> > [    0.981331] ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xfd0002c0 ctl 0xfd0002ca bmdma 0xfd000208 irq 0
> > [    1.299353] ata1: device not ready (errno=-19), forcing hardreset
> > [    2.817893] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
> > [    2.826284] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 39070080, hpa_sectors = 39070080
> > [    2.831052] ata1.00: ATA-5: HHD424020F7SV00, 00MLA0A5, max UDMA/100
> > [    2.837548] ata1.00: 39070080 sectors, multi 0: LBA
> > [    2.842702] ata1.00: applying bridge limits
> > [    2.854162] ata1.00: ata_hpa_resize 1: sectors = 39070080, hpa_sectors = 39070080
> > [    2.858938] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> > [    3.172602] ata2: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310)
> > [    3.175736] scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      HHD424020F7SV00  00ML PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
> > 
> > I'm not sure if it matters or not, but this is an iVDR drive, so that
> > might also have additional implications.
> 
> Don't have the flimsiest idea what an iVDR drive is but I take it that
> it's some sort of special purpose thing.  :-)
> 
http://www.ivdr.org

The GoVault appears to be a similar device, in that they're both
removeable cartridges.

> Gary, IIRC, the requirement for GoVault was 3secs, right?  Paul, can you
> try to estimate the minimum required delay?  Please go down by 100ms and
> report where it breaks.
> 
800ms was the lowest it would work at, 700ms still breaks.
-
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/