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: <499BADD3.2080805@gawab.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:42:27 -0800
From:	Justin Madru <jdm64@...ab.com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.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

Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Justin Madru 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
>>>
>>>   
>> Well, like I said: "[I] Don't know". I'm not a kernel developer (or 
>> even any developer... yet).
>> I'm just someone that tests the -rc kernels to see if there's any 
>> problems with my hardware.
>> I try to report any regressions to lkml, and hopefully help the 
>> developers.
>>
>> To me, who has no knowledge of all these low level issues, the 
>> following error messages
>> look strikingly similar with a quick glance.
>>
>> # bug 12609
>> # http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123254501314058&w=4
>> #
>> ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen
>> ata2.00: cmd a0/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0
>>         cdb 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>         res 51/20:03:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 Emask 0x5 (timeout)
>> ata2.00: status: { DRDY ERR }
>> ata2: soft resetting link
>> ata2.00: configured for UDMA/33
>> ata2: EH complete
>>
>> # bug 12263
>> # http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122913412608533&w=4
>> #
>> ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen
>> ata2.00: ST_FIRST: !(DRQ|ERR|DF)
>> ata2.00: cmd a0/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 tag 0
>>         cdb 1e 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>         res 50/00:01:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/a0 Emask 0x2 (HSM 
>> violation)
>
>   Note the different value of the status, error and interrupt reason 
> registers: 51/20:03 vs 50/00:01. The former means (unexpected?) status 
> phase interrupt with error indication and the sense key NOT READY, the 
> latter means (unexpected?) command phase interrupt with no error. 
> IIUC, the former happens once the 'sr' driver first sends the TEST 
> UNIT READY command while probing the CD/DVD drive, the latter seems to 
> be a result of some polling process (originated from userland) -- I'm 
> not seeing ALLOW_MEDIUM_REMOVAL anywhere in this driver. So they only 
> look similar, I think...

And that is why I'm a tester and you're a developer ;) Thanks for the 
info! Next time I'll look closer
and maybe know what I'm actually looking at.
>
>
>> So, will the patch for 12609 fix my issue also, or does there need to 
>> be another patch?
>
>   Most probably it'll need another patch.
So then, #12263 should be reopened and marked as not a duplicate.
Anyways, if tip/master gets merged how it is now then my bug should be 
fixed.

Justin Madru
--
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/