linux-kernel - Re: Overagressive failing of disk reads, both LIBATA and IDE

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: <1237648702.4600.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:18:22 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>, Norman Diamond <n0diamond@...oo.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Overagressive failing of disk reads, both LIBATA and IDE

On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:10 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Using the disk supplied data about where the error occurred (provided
> > the disk returns it) eliminates all the readahead problems like the one
> 
> ATA disks do provide sector information generally, as do CD-ROMs, in fact
> we actually decode it for error reporting so probably all the bits are
> there to improve any reporting for most read side cases.
> 
> >From some of the traces I have been debugging I am not convinced the scsi
> mid layer does the right thing any more. It uses to be handling CD-R
> media (where the end of media is not well defined) but nowdays seems to
> be reporting errors even when told that the I/O partly succeeded. I need
> to debug that case further however but as I don't have one of the problem
> drives its a bit tricky.

OK, so in modern kernels, this is done in the ULD ... specifically for
disks in sd.c:sd_done and for CD/DVD in sr.c:sr_done().

The sr.c one looks crufty in that I don't think it handles descriptor
sense at all, so perhaps it should be updated to match the sd one?

> > above.  Perhaps just turning of readahead for disks that don't supply
> > error location information would be a reasonable workaround?
> 
> Not really. From a performance perspective Mark's patch is vastly
> superior because it punishes the incredibly rare error case not the
> routine working performance. Avoiding the need to do either would be even
> better - as would fixing the block layer not to mess up retries in this
> situation.
> 
> For low speed devices like MMC cards and flash it might make sense not to
> merge unrelated requests however so that only the relevant one fails.

See other email for suggestion how to do this at the block level.

James


--
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/