linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Re: [bug] ata subsystem related crash with latest -git

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:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:02:50 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [bug] ata subsystem related crash with latest -git

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Tomo and I agreed to kill sg_last() a few days ago anyways, so this 
>>> is perfectly fine with me.
>> Yep, the [attached] patch that kills ata_sg_is_last() is working here 
>> on both machines that were previously croaking.
>>
>> It would be nice to get pdc_adma, sata_sil24 and ipr it-works test 
>> done, but IMO the patch is pretty straightforward and should be OK.
> 
> just a quick question: i have Jens's workarounds applied right now (see 
> patch below). Am i now crash/corruption-safe, or do i need your patch 
> too? And once your patch [and the other sg_*() patches] are upstream i 
> dont need the workaround anymore, correct?

You need my patch if and only if you use one of the drivers touched by 
the patch.  ata_sg_is_last() was a driver helper function, so my fix 
never really touched core code.

I never had to apply the changes you included, to fix problems here.

And looking at those changes...
> -	q->max_phys_segments = max_segments;
> +	q->max_phys_segments = max_segments - 1;
  ...
> -#define SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS	128
> +#define SCSI_MAX_SG_SEGMENTS	129

I wonder if libata should be doing

	blk_queue_max_phys_segments(q, q->max_phys_segments - 1)

to account for the pad entry that libata owns.

	Jeff



-
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/