[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ea470500807280916k7824dc28m169f4c4db65023fa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:16:16 +0200
From: "Boris Petkov" <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To: "Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz" <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IDE S.M.A.R.T. ioctl errors
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
<bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 28 July 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> [ 32.918048] ide_cmd_ioctl: args[0]: 0xb0, args[1]: 0x1, args[2]: 0xd5 args[3]: 0x1
>> [ 32.918164] hdd: status error: status=0x58 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest }
>> [ 32.918392] ide: failed opcode was: 0xb0
>> [ 32.918491] hdd: drive not ready for command
>> [ 32.918618] hdd: status error: status=0x58 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest }
>> [ 32.918844] ide: failed opcode was: 0xea
>> [ 32.918949] hdd: drive not ready for command
>> ...
>>
>> and this is "caused" by
>> ide-use-correct-data-phase-for-smart-read-data-log-in-ide_cmd_ioctl.patch. This
>> happens, IMHO, because when you do ATA_CMD_SMART from userspace ioctl, one of
>> the cases is that the tf->feature flags have values which are inconsistent with
>> the ATA/ATAPI v.7 spec (6.54.5 SMART READ DATA):
>>
>> "If the device does not support this command, if SMART is disabled, or if the
>> values in the Features, LBA Mid, or LBA High registers are invalid, the device
>> shall return command aborted."
>>
>> For example this one:
>>
>> [ 30.499581] ide_cmd_ioctl: args[0]: 0xb0, args[1]: 0x1, args[2]: 0xd1 args[3]: 0x1
>> [ 30.516111] hda: task_no_data_intr: status=0x58 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest }
>> [ 30.516387] ide: failed opcode was: 0xb0
>>
>> However, the case with the SMART_READ_LOG looks correct above: args[2] = 0xd5
>> which is the tf->feature flag, cmd = 0xb0 (ATA_CMD_SMART). This one fails too, though.
>
> Thanks for spotting it.
>
> It seems that ide_cmd_ioctl() ->data_phase change is not as obvious as
> I previously thought. Since the patch is quite low-prio (it prepares
> the code for future changes) I just dropped it until we learn more about
> the underlying issues.
How about aborting the ioctl in all those cases when the relevant
registers above contain invalid values
according to the spec? It sounds a pretty sane thing to do...
--
Regards/Gruß,
Boris
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists