linux-kernel - Re: [ 38/48] SCSI & usb-storage: add try_rc_10

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: <1341376784.4852.175.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:39:44 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [ 38/48] SCSI & usb-storage: add try_rc_10_first flag

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:10 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This patch is a better fix for the issue first fixed by:
> "usb-storage: Add 090c:1000 to unusal-devs", so the same applies to
> this patch, let me quote my reply to the stable-review for that patch:
> 
> "I'm not sure if this is needed with 3.2, it is needed with 3.4 because
> recently the usb-storage driver was changed to report the supported
> scsi level as reported by the device, rather then always report a
> scsi level of 2. This change causes sd.c to try READ_CAPACITY(16)
> first, which foobars up not only this one device, but as it turns
> out a lot of others too, so we're working on another fix
> (and I believe that 3.2 is unaffected)."
> 
> So since 3.2 already tries READ_CAPACITY(10) first, this patch is
> not needed. It does not harm either, and if the scsi level reporting
> change ever finds its way into 3.2 stable (which it should not
> IMHO), then this patch will be needed.
[...]

Thanks for the explanation.  Given this and the subsequent discussion,
I've dropped the patch and assume no changes along these lines will be
needed for 3.2.y.  (But that doesn't mean I'll necessarily spot and
filter out any such changes myself.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
When in doubt, use brute force. - Ken Thompson

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)