linux-kernel - Re: Problem with ata layer in 2.6.24

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: <20080129184613.16846ae5@core>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:46:13 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...ervon.org>
Cc:	Richard Heck <rgheck@...jweil.com>,
	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
	Zan Lynx <zlynx@....org>,
	Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ide Mailing list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with ata layer in 2.6.24

> The SCSI error reporting really ought to include a simple interpretation 
> of the error for end users ("The drive doesn't support this command" "A 
> sector's data got lost" "The drive timed out" "The drive failed" "The 
> drive is entirely gone"). There's too much similarity between the message 
> you get when you try a SMART test that doesn't apply to the drive and what 
> you get when the drive is broken.

That would be the SCSI verbose messages option. I think the Eric
Youngdale consortium added it about Linux 1.2. Nowdays its always built
that way.

> And it's possible that the error recovery is suboptimal in some cases. It 
> seems to like resetting drives too much; perhaps if it keeps seeing the 
> same problem and resetting the drive, it should decide that the drive's 
> error reporting is just bad and just ignore that error like the old IDE 
> did (but, in this case, after saying what it's doing).

Nothing like casually praying the users data hasn't gone for a walk is
there. If we don't act on them the users don't report them until
something really bad occurs so that isn't an option.

Alan
--
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/