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  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:	Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:12:19 -0500
From:	s ponnusa <>
To:	Robert Hancock <>
Cc:	Greg Freemyer <>,
	Mark Lord <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,,,
	Jens Axboe <>,
Subject: Re: Linux kernel - Libata bad block error handling to user mode 

Is it the case even during the blocking operation where the write op
waits for the call return?
Even, fsync does not catch the errors. (or alteast in the 2.6.27). I
agree with you on the process flow. Will post more testing results and
details within a couple of days.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Robert Hancock <> wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 04:44 PM, s ponnusa wrote:
>> Had some issues with the libata in 2.6.27 kernel's libata code, but
>> believe the issues were fixed in the subsequent versions. Atleast one
>> prominent issue was with a Western Digital HDD of 40 GB size. The
>> manufacturer specific LBA was 78125000 and was reported as correctly
>> in Win32 and DOS applications. But the 2.6.27 kernel was reporting
>> ~40000 sectors more. But the problem dissappeared with the 2.6.3x
>> kernel and I did not bother to check the patches due to lack of time.
>> But still, the write's failure is not being seen by the application. I
>> can understand the fact of not checking the media errors during the
>> write operation, and had posted a request for a quick suggestions of
>> the locations which needs to be changed / checked for the return
>> value. ( Should it be handled at the vfs or at the libata code?). Will
>> surely update the testing results with the new kernel (Well, not
>> exactly as I am not using the latest version though! Currently trying
>> with 2.6.31). Thank you all for suggestions.
> It's quite likely for write errors not to be noticed by the application.
> Even if the drive does report a write error, the application that wrote the
> data could have completed the write and even closed the file or exited
> before the data actually gets written to disk. Only if fsync (or related
> functions) are called on the file is it guaranteed that the data has been
> written out to the drive (and any generated errors should be seen at that
> time).
>> -
>> SP
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Greg Freemyer<>
>>  wrote:
>>>> But really.. isn't "hdparm --security-erase NULL /dev/sdX" good enough
>>>> ???
>>> This thread seems to have died off.  If there is a real problem, I
>>> hope it picks back up.
>>> Mark, as to your question the few times I've tried that the bios on
>>> the test machine blocked the command.  So it may have some specific
>>> utility, but it's a not a generic solution in my mind.
>>> Greg
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
>> the body of a message to
>> More majordomo info at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists