linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #12263] Sata soft reset filling log

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902171102260.15234@blonde.anvils>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:19:53 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Justin Madru <jdm64@...ab.com>
cc:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux IDE <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12263] Sata soft reset filling log

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Justin Madru wrote:
> Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> >
> > If 12609 is truly a post-2.6.28 regression and 12263 is post-2.6.27
> > regresssion, this just cannot be.
> 
> Maybe the reporter of #12609 didn't notice/test kernels 28-rc1 to 28. Or maybe
> the difference in hardware is
> the issue, but the bug is still the same. Don't know.

Sorry Justin, you must be confused: as Sergei says,
#12609 and #12263 can only be different.

I was one of the reporters of #12609, and I do know it's a post-2.6.28
regression (and Larry said so too), and one fix (not the preferred fix)
is to revert the ata_bmdma32_port_ops from 2.6.29-rc, and the preferred
fix is to improve the ata_sff_data_xfer32() introduced in 2.6.29-rc1.

2.6.28 does not contain any ata_bmdma32_port_ops, nor ata_sff_data_xfer32(),
not did 2.6.28-rc1 contain them.  So it is impossible for the reversion of
the patch that introduced them to fix any problem on 2.6.28.

I'm quite prepared to believe that your #12263 manifests similarly to
#12609, and that a tip tree which contains a fix for #12609 contains
a fix for #12263; but please, those bugs are not the same, and they
don't have the same fix.

Hugh
--
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/