linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.29 regression: ATA bus errors on resume

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]

Date:	Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:26:42 +0200
From:	Niel Lambrechts <niel.lambrechts@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	"linux.kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29 regression: ATA bus errors on resume

On 04/06/2009 09:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Niel Lambrechts wrote:
>   
>> On 04/06/2009 12:09 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>     
>>>> Will the fix naturally make its way into the mainline kernel, or is
>>>> there any extra debugging/testing I can help with?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Well, the problem is the debug patch doesn't actually do anything
>>> other than printing out messages.  It could be that the problem is
>>> timing dependent (which is likely anyway).  You still can reporduce
>>> the problem with the patch, right?
>>>   
>>>       
>> Heh? You provided two patches, with the last one you said:
>>     
>
> Yeah, the second one actually only added printks to see whether that's
> the case.  No behavior change.
>
>   
>>> Strange.  Maybe IO commands are getting through while the sdev is
>>> still in quiesce state?  Can you please repeat the test with the
>>> attached patch?
>>>       
>> With the latter, I have not encountered the original problem i.e. any
>> severe EXT4 corruption again, not in 2.6.29 and not in 2.6.29.1.
>>     
>
> Eh... so, we're definitely seeing something which is dependent on
> timing.
>
>   
>> Do I also need to try the last patch without any debugging messages?
>>     
>
> Then there will be nothing left.  :-) Can you please try the attached
> patch?  It's still only debug messages but lighter; hopefully, it
> won't mask the problem.
>   
Sorry, my bad - I assumed the 2nd patch actually made a functional
difference... :)

Here is the output on 2.6.29.1 with your new patch - still nothing
serious happening, resume still seems okay!

cheers
Niel

View attachment "resume-t3.txt" of type "text/plain" (14703 bytes)