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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists