linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: fix residual byte count handling

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: <20080304223006A.tomof@acm.org>
Date:	Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:30:13 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <tomof@....org>
To:	htejun@...il.com
Cc:	efault@....de, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, tomof@....org,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com, bzolnier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix residual byte count handling

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:40:53 +0900
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:

> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 10:35 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> >> Looks excellent to me, has a variant of this been tested as OK by the
> >> users reporting the regression?
> > 
> > K3b burning seems to be a nogo here.  This is git pulled this morning
> > though, so it's a somewhat different tree than previously tested fwtw.
> > 
> > [  136.440021] ata1.01: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x2 frozen
> > [  136.440043] ata1.01: cmd a0/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/b0 tag 0
> > [  136.440045]          cdb 51 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > [  136.440047]          res 58/00:02:00:02:00/00:00:00:00:00/b0 Emask 0x2 (HSM violation)
> > [  136.440053] ata1.01: status: { DRDY DRQ }
> > [  136.440086] ata1: soft resetting link
> > [  165.327627] ata1.01: qc timeout (cmd 0xa1)
> > [  165.327627] ata1.01: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
> > [  165.327627] ata1.01: revalidation failed (errno=-5)
> > [  165.327627] ata1: failed to recover some devices, retrying in 5 secs
> > [  177.272373] ata1: port is slow to respond, please be patient (Status 0x80)
> > [  180.388879] ata1: device not ready (errno=-16), forcing hardreset
> > [  180.388879] ata1: soft resetting link
> > [  210.832471] ata1.01: qc timeout (cmd 0xa1)
> > [  210.832471] ata1.01: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
> > [  210.832471] ata1.01: revalidation failed (errno=-5)
> > [  210.832471] ata1: failed to recover some devices, retrying in 5 secs
> > [  223.392899] ata1: port is slow to respond, please be patient (Status 0x80)
> > [  225.920376] ata1: device not ready (errno=-16), forcing hardreset
> > [  225.920376] ata1: soft resetting link
> > [  256.542565] ata1.01: qc timeout (cmd 0xa1)
> > [  256.542565] ata1.01: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
> > [  256.542565] ata1.01: revalidation failed (errno=-5)
> > [  256.542565] ata1.01: disabled
> 
> Aiee... device going down after timing out on READ_DISC_INFO.  That's
> gruesome.  Can you please try the other patches?

Tejun, I thought that libata needs a fix for sum(sg) != rq->data_len. No?

Now Jens' git tree should work with all the non libata stuff, ide,
firewire, bsg, etc. But I'm not sure about libata.
--
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/