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:	Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:35:42 -0800
From:	Mike Anderson <>
To:	Alan Stern <>
Cc:	James Bottomley <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,
	SCSI development list <>,
	Kernel development list <>
Subject: Re: Problems with the block-layer timeouts

Alan Stern <> wrote:
> I spent most of the day yesterday debugging some tricky problems in the
> new block-layer timeout scheme.  Clearly it is in need of more work.
> A major reason for these problems was that there doesn't seem to be a 
> clear a idea of when the timeout period should begin.  In 
> blk_add_timer() a comment says:

> How should this be fixed?  It would help to call scsi_dev_queue_ready()  
> before elv_next_request(), but that's not sufficient.  
> scsi_times_out() needs to recognize that a timeout for a non-running
> request can be handled by directly returning BLK_EH_HANDLED.  Right?

Tejun described a similar issue here.

And a fix to address the issue here.

Does the patch posted by Tejun address your issue?

> While I'm on the subject, there are a few related items that could be 
> improved.  In my tests, I was generating I/O requests simply by doing
> 	dd if=/dev/sda ...
> I don't know where the timeouts for these requests are determined, but
> they were set to 60 seconds.  That seems much too long.

It is set by a udev rule and the value is historical.

Michael Anderson
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists