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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200806252224.36364.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:36 +0200
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
Cc:	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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

On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> "Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz" <bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> > I don't see why you think it's "hard". We have timeout handlers for many
> >
> >>> > commands and those reset/abort just fine.
> >>>
> >>> They are different beasts from user-space initiated abort operation
> >>
> >> No they are not. They are the *same* thing in every respect.
> >>
> >> You have the drive in an unknown state, you want it back. If your drive
> >> lost a command due to noise or a firmware flaw you have no idea about the
> >> state it is actually in (supposed to be is irrelevant)
> >
> > I generally agree with you w.r.t. to drive side of the operations but
> > the drive is only part of the equation (the host and the request states
> > are the others) so 'supposed to be is' is quite relevant.
> >
> > Also abort request can happen i.e. while the command is being prepared
> > & issued (it is done without ide_lock being taken and the timeout is not
> > even armed yet) so there are additional issues to take care of.
> 
> Yes there are. Still, I think it should be feasible which is why I
> personally would prefer to drop the second patch in the series for the
> time being. But then I can keep it around for reference locally and the
> original infrastructure can be found in the history after all.
> 
> Even though the patch series currently doesn't fully restore the
> intended functionality, I'd like to merge it now. Command aborting

Thanks, I applied everything and queued it for 2.6.27.

[ including patch #2, we should re-add aborting when fixed/necessary ]

> didn't work reliably (if at all) before and now, at least, a simple
> ioctl won't harm a healthy system anymore. Since I think that we can add
> command aborting back later, I'd like to keep the HDIO_DRIVE_RESET ioctl
> even if it should currently be superfluous given SG_IO.

SG_IO ATA pass-through is unsupported currently in drivers/ide/
(though nowadays it should be quite easy to add it if somebody is
interested) so it is indeed the best to leave the ioctl for now.

Bart
--
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/