linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:04:23 +0200
From:	Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> Elias Oltmanns wrote:
>>> The correct way to do this is ata_eh_about_to_do().  After that, you
>
>>> can just look at ehc->i.dev_action[].  Also, you'll need to call
>>> ata_eh_done() later.
>> 
>> We have a problem here, I'm afraid, because we may keep looping in EH
>> context and still want to pick up ATA_EH_PARK requests. Imagine that
>> ATA_EH_PARK has been scheduled for device A and the EH thread has
>> reached the call to schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(). Now, ATA_EH_PARK
>> is scheduled for device B on the same port. This will wake up the EH
>> thread, but ATA_EH_PARK is only recorded in link->eh_info, not in
>> link->eh_context.i. ata_eh_about_to_do() will unconditionally clear the
>> flag in eh_info, but checking ehc->i.dev_action afterwards will only
>> tell us whether this flag was set when we entered EH, not whether it had
>> been set since.
>> 
>> Should I change ata_eh_about_to_do() so that it will record the action
>> in link->eh_context before clearing it in link->eh_info?
>
> That's what ata_eh_about_to_do() currently does, exactly.  Actually,
> that's the whole reason it's there as the described problem exists for
> all other actions too.  :-)

Sounds reasonable enough. Much as I regret it, though, I really can't
find that this is what actually happens. Where exactly is the action
propagated from ehi to ehc->i? (Checked next-20080903, v2.6.27-rc5 and
v2.6.26).

On another matter: I don't particularly like the idea that there should
appear an "EH complete" in the logs every time a head unload request has
been processed. Is it safe to set ATA_EHI_QUIET when scheduling unload
requests or is the risk that something important may be missed too high?

>
>>> And it's probably better to have ehc->unloaded_mask instead of
>>> ehc->did_unload_mask and clear it here so that if unload is scheduled
>>> after this point but before EH completes, it does unloading again.
>>> ie. Something like the following.
>>>
>>> 	ata_eh_done(ATA_EH_UNLOAD);
>>> 	ehc->i.unloaded_mask &= ~(1 << dev->devno);
>> 
>> No need for that because link->eh_context is cleared in
>> ata_scsi_error().
>
> No, for example, later steps of EH could fail in which case eh_recover
> will be retried without going out to ata_scsi_error().

Alright then.

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/