linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: retrieve cache mode using ATA

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:41:20 +0000 (GMT)
From:	전남재 <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@...il.com>,
	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net" <mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: retrieve cache mode using ATA_16 if normal
 routine fails

I changed recipients.

I hope you answer us about the below email.

Thanks. 
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Amit Sahrawat<amit.sahrawat83@...il.com> 
Date   : 2012-01-27 14:20 (GMT+09:00)
Title  : Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: retrieve cache mode using ATA_16 if normal
 routine fails

Dear James/Jeff,

I have few questions regarding the code changes which can be accepted
in this regards.

In our scenario we are not making use of CONFIG_ATA, but still if that
is the proper manner to bring out the changes ? then we can enable and
make changes in the respective file which seems to be libata-scsi.c

We need a mechanism wherein we can query and then get the response so
that we set the WCE bit accordingly. For that matter, I think we can
introduce some function in libata-scsi.c and then call that function
from either drivers/scsi/sd.c or drivers/usb/storage/scsiglue.c

Please share your valuable inputs on how and where actually these
changes should be done. Otherwise, there is again a chance that our
changes gets rejected.

Please help in this regards.

Thanks & Regards,
Amit Sahrawat



On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> wrote:
> 2011/12/14 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>:
>> On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 09:14 +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote:
>>> Just to add a thought - this issues is not related with ATA, this is
>>> primarily related with HDD's with a USB interface i.e., SCSI <-> USB.
>>> And, when I check my kernel config, CONFIG_ATA is not selected,
>>> libata-scsi - this gets compiled only in case CONFIG_ATA is on.
>>> Are these two things inter-related?
>>
> Hi. James.
>
>> OK, so what you're telling us is that you're trying to correct a
>> deficiency in a SATL inside a USB device? ?The device itself is ATA but
>> it doesn't use our libata connectors.
>>
>> I think in that case, the best way forwards is a mini-SATL correction
>> layer within USB storage. ?USB storage is certainly the place to
>> black/white list whether this should be done. ?ATA_16 is a bit of a
>> dangerous command to be throwing around because it's known to crash
>> various USB devices (and some old SCSI ones might even choke on it).
> Okay, how about make some option in Kconfig of scsi or usb storage to
> protect from the a bit of risk ATA_16 ?
> The user can select this option to use stable filesystem on USB HDD.
>>
>> depending on how big this SATL ends up being we should consider whether
>> it should share processing with the libata SATL. ?If it's just a single
>> mode sense, my instinct is that it's probably OK to implement separately
>> (however, you need to use the libata headers ... no duplication of
>> libata opcodes and status defines like you had in the original SCSI
>> patch). ?If there are more commands to correct on the way, it might be
>> better as shared code.
> I agree. I and Amit will check the best way between SATL or miniSATL
> in usb_storage accoding to your advice.
>
>> James
>>
>>
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>