linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IDE: Fix HDIO_DRIVE

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: <87skv3s3d9.fsf@denkblock.local>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:23:30 +0200
From:	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE: Fix HDIO_DRIVE_RESET handling

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
[...]
>> Indeed, the following patch series is based on nex-20080620.  Just to be
>> absolutely clear though, this is actually a bug fix since a
>> 
>> # hdparm -w /dev/hda
>> 
>> currently freezes the system if there happens to be any I/O operation in
>> progress.  Not sure whether this is serious enough for -rc or, indeed,
>> -stable trees, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
> According to 'man hdparm':
>
>        -w     Perform a device reset (DANGEROUS).  Do NOT use this option.  It
>               exists for unlikely situations where a reboot might otherwise be
>               required to get a confused drive back into a useable state.
>
> so I don't think that a rush is necessary (however we may still want to get
> patch #1 in for 2.6.26).

I see.

>
> BTW Your fix adds framework which can be re-used for fixing locking of
>IDE
> settings (+ it finally makes sense to dust-off my IDE settings rework which
> was always low-prio and was never posted :) and maybe it could be also used
> for drive->special handling.

Alan's remark made me think again and I'm still not quite sure whether I
can (and indeed should) fix ide_abort() and allow for out of band
execution of HDIO_DRIVE_RESET as well as idle immediate with head unload
for disk shock protection. What are your views on Alan's remark and my
reply?

[...]
>> 4. Adds some more error reporting facilities and documents them as well.
>> 
>> Please be particularly alert when reviewing the last patch.  I merely
>> did what seemed to be the right and obvious thing to do but I ironed out
>> some irregularities along the way which (for all improbability) may have
>> been there for some reason or other.  It beats me, for instance, why
>> ->polling but not ->resetting should be reset to 0 when
>> sil_sata_reset_poll() returns non zero.  So, I now both are 0 once any
>> of the poll functions returns ide_stopped.
>
> Looks OK but please move the above description to the patch description.

Will do.

>
> Patches #2 and #3 also look good.

Thanks for reviewing.

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/