linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fixups to ATA ACPI hotplug

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: <20080520084928.GA2959@homac>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2008 10:49:29 +0200
From:	Holger Macht <hmacht@...e.de>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixups to ATA ACPI hotplug

On Mon 19. May - 17:29:34, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The libata-acpi.c code currently accepts hotplug messages from both the 
> port and the device. This does not match the behaviour of the bay 
> driver, and may result in confusion when two hotplug requests are 
> received for the same device. This patch limits the hotplug notification 
> to removable ACPI devices, which in turn allows it to use the _STA 
> method to determine whether the device has been removed or inserted. 
> On removal, devices are marked as detached. On insertion, a hotplug scan 
> is started. This should avoid lockups caused by the ata layer attempting 
> to scan devices which have been removed. The uevent sending is moved 
> outside the spinlock in order to avoid a warning generated by it firing 
> when interrupts are disabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Holger, I'm pretty sure that this deals with the docking station removal 
> case, but don't have the hardware to test. If EJECT_REQUEST is genuinely 

I tried it, it doesn't.

 Undock --> some userspace app accesses the device --> hard lockup

> the only notification we receive (ie, no BUS_CHECK or DEVICE_CHECK) then 
> we'll need to add a separate callback for docking.

Yes, see my patch.

Regards,
	Holger
--
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/