linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5

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: <20090223110936.GY29783@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:09:37 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	"Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <Mike.Miller@...com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"coldwell@...hat.com" <coldwell@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] block bits for 2.6.29-rc5

On Fri, Feb 20 2009, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> Jens wrote:
> 
> > > > Perhaps we should shrink it to something a little more 
> > tolerable and 
> > > > put it in the noop loop instead. 30 seconds is insane...
> > > 
> > > Some of these controllers do take a long time to recover from the 
> > > reset because the firmware has to re-initialize. The firmware guys 
> > > claim that's only a few seconds but that's not true.
> > > 
> > > Granted, the 5i is old as dirt. Don't know how many are still out 
> > > there running newer kernels.
> > 
> > So a small improvement would be to do that delay only for 5i. 
> > Or how about just being a little more relaxed, ala the below? 
> > It's still 30 seconds in total, but that's now worst case. 
> > Will the 5i crap itself if we attempt to talk to it too soon?
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/cciss.c b/drivers/block/cciss.c 
> > index d2cb67b..b5a0611 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/cciss.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/cciss.c
> > @@ -3611,11 +3611,15 @@ static int __devinit 
> > cciss_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> >  		schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(30*HZ);
> >  
> >  		/* Now try to get the controller to respond to 
> > a no-op */
> > -		for (i=0; i<12; i++) {
> > +		for (i=0; i<30; i++) {
> >  			if (cciss_noop(pdev) == 0)
> >  				break;
> > -			else
> > -				printk("cciss: no-op 
> > failed%s\n", (i < 11 ? "; re-trying" : ""));
> > +
> > +			schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ);
> > +		}
> > +		if (i == 30) {
> > +			printk(KERN_ERR "cciss: controller 
> > seems dead\n");
> > +			return -EBUSY;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> 
> The controller won't crap the bed, it will just ignore any requests
> until it becomes ready. I don't see any problem with this change.

OK, then it should be safe enough. I've added the patch to the upstream
queue, with your reviewed-by tag.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/