linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Disk shock protection (revisited)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:51:59 +0100
From:	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disk shock protection (revisited)

Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de> wrote:
[...]
> I'm going to send a first draft of a patch series in reply to this
> email. It is a stripped down version intended to get the general idea
> across.

Have you had got round to looking at these patches yet?

> The first of these four patches will eventually need to be modified to
> actually abort in flight commands and clear up the mess afterwards.
> However, first and foremost I'd like to draw your attention to the use
> of REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK requests as demonstrated in the other three
> patches. The question is whether the underlying concept is right.
> Although the question how to handle REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK requests in
> the scsi subsystem has been raised on the linux-scsi ml, it has never
> been answered really because this request type was deemed unsuitable
> for the application in question. See, for instance, the thread
> starting at [1]. My patch approach has been partly inspired by the
> patch discussed there. Before I raise this issue yet again, I'd like
> to know whether REQ_TYPE_LINUX_BLOCK is the right choice for my
> application in your opinion or whether another mechanism might be more
> suitable as James suggested a while ago (see [2]).
>
> Regards,
>
> Elias
>
> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/30049
> [2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/37951

Sorry, I got these two the wrong way round. [1] should be [2] and vice
versa.

Regards,

Elias
--
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/