linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: Don't trust current capacity values in identify words 57-58

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: <499A066A.7060509@ru.mvista.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:35:54 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
Cc:	Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Hanno Böck <hanno@...eck.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: Don't trust current capacity values in identify
 words 57-58

Hello.

Mark Lord wrote:

>> Hanno Böck reported a problem where an old Conner CP30254 240MB hard 
>> drive
>> was reported as 1.1TB in capacity by libata:
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/13/134
>>
>> This was caused by libata trusting the drive's reported current 
>> capacity in sectors in identify words 57 and 58 if the drive does not 
>> support LBA and the
>> current CHS translation values appear valid. Unfortunately it seems 
>> older
>> ATA specs were vague about what this field should contain and a 
>> number of drives
>> used values with wrong byte order or that were totally bogus. There's no
>> unique information that it conveys and so we can just calculate the 
>> number
>> of sectors from the reported current CHS values.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
> ..
>>      } else {
>>          if (ata_id_current_chs_valid(id))
>> -            return ata_id_u32(id, 57);
>> +            return id[54] * id[55] * id[56];
>>          else
>>              return id[1] * id[3] * id[6];
> ..
>
> NAK.  That's not quite correct, either.
>
> The LBA capacity can be larger than the CHS capacity,
> so we have to use the reported LBA values if at all possible.
>
> That's why ata_id_is_lba_capacity_ok() exists,
> and why it looks so peculiar.

   I think that checking LBA validity is a matter of another patch. This 
patch in itself should be sufficient.

> Some of those early drives really did require that kind of logic.

   I hightly doubt that this 240 MB drive is LBA capable at all.

> Cheers

MBR, Sergei


--
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/