linux-kernel - Re: USB storage no-boot regression (bisected)

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: <49E5FF48.3030809@rtr.ca>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:37:44 -0400
From:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Linux USB kernel mailing list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: USB storage no-boot regression (bisected)

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:25:05 -0400
> Mark Lord <lkml@....ca> wrote:
> 
>> Greg KH wrote:
>>> ..
>>> The issue is that you were just lucky that your machine worked
>>> properly previously.  My boxes with the same type of setup didn't,
>>> so I quickly realized what the root delay boot option was for.  You
>>> need to just do the same thing here, there's nothing else we can do.
>> ..
>>
>> Bad excuse.
>>
>> SATA drives also take variable amounts of time to "show up" at boot.
>> Perhaps Jeff should customize libata for your and Arjan's exact
>> setups, just to help with understanding the point here.  :)
> 
> the difference is that with sata you know when you are done and have all
> possible drives. No so much much with USB. So with SATA we can, and do,
> wait for the scan to complete at the right point in the boot.
> 
>> The speed ups are fine (and welcome), but we really now need
>> Arjan to follow-up with a patch to have the kernel *by default*
>> wait a little longer for the rootfs to show up.
>>
>> Not forever, just a few seconds to compensate for the regression.
> 
> seconds!!!!!
> The whole kernel boots in half a second!
..

Oh, absolutely I agree.

That's why I'm not suggesting a DELAY,
but rather a TIMEOUT (where it keeps trying up until the timeout).

For desktop, it should really just wait forever,
but I can understand situations (server room)
where that would be a Really Bad Idea.

So just have it sit there and retry the rootfs for a few seconds,
to compensate for this regression and also for others that have
yet to be discovered / reported.

Everyone's life will be easier that way.

Cheers
--
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/