linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix SCSI regression in 2.6.27 [was [Bugme-new] [Bug 12099] New: Nokia 5310 storage-mode]

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0811260957470.2359-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:01:47 -0500 (EST)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix SCSI regression in 2.6.27 [was [Bugme-new] [Bug
 12099] New: Nokia 5310 storage-mode]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, James Bottomley wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 10:34 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This patch is intended for 2.6.27.stable and 2.6.28.  It's a temporary 
> > fix for a problem affecting a number of USB mass-storage devices 
> > (including many Nokia phones): When trying to access a nonexistent 
> > "last" sector, the SCSI midlayer gets caught in an endless retry loop.
> 
> Can't we just invoke the last sector handling flag for all Nokia
> devices?

That would work for those devices... until and unless Nokia ever 
decides to correct their bug.  It won't help anything else.

> This would cause tape errors on unit attention (fairly common
> condition).  It can be argued that we get more users of USB mobile
> phones than tapes, but I'd rather keep both communities happy

Me too.  I realize this patch hasn't been tested or vetted by anyone in
the SCSI development crowd.  That's why I've been pestering you guys
about it!

> By and large, the reason we backport from head if at all possible is so
> we can avoid bugs like this creeping into stable.  (And backporting from
> head is far easier if the bug fixes are small and don't contain
> miscellaneous code clean ups, control flow changes and comment fixes)

> I tried to untangle it on the 'plane yesterday.  I've just got a bit
> more testing to do then I'll post the patch to your patch.

That's fine with me.  I just don't want to see the same problem 
continuing on into 2.6.28.final.

Alan Stern

--
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/