linux-kernel - Re: New boot time message: detected capacity change

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:	Wed, 18 May 2011 13:50:19 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New boot time message: detected capacity change

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> wrote:
> Today's pull from Linus' tree (HEAD = 258-ga2b9c1f) gave me some new
> messages during boot:
>
> sda: detected capacity change from 0 to 146815737856
> sdb: detected capacity change from 0 to 146815737856
>
> They weren't there yesterday (HEAD = 211-gc1d10d1) ... nor do they
> show up in any of my saved boot time dmesg files for the last few
> months.
>
> Harmless?  Or something to worry about in the last few commits
> before 2.6.39 goes final?

I htink it's 02e352287a40 ("block: rescan partitions on invalidated
devices on -ENOMEDIA too"), which was reported to fix a bugzilla
entry.

However, now that I look closer, that bugzilla entry was two years old
and reported for 2.6.29.

So it wasn't a regression fix like the changelog made me think (with a
stable pointer for 38)

Jens, Tejun - stop this messing around! The block layer has been one
of the problem children in the last releases, the *LAST* thing we need
is things like this happening this late in the -rc series!

Seriously. I'm really upset. I need to be able to trust you, and you
are not being trust-worthy. F*&^ you, in other words. This was *NOT* a
regression.

I don't care if it fixes a long-standing bug, you do not send fixes
like that to me. It should have gone into the merge window for 40, and
at *that* point it might be marked for stable.

As it was, I feel that those commit descriptions were actively
misleading me into thinking this was a regression.

Maybe it won't cause any problems, but -rc7 is not the time to make
these kinds of experiments!

                         Linus
--
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/