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  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, 8 Mar 2014 11:57:18 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Tejun Heo <>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	IDE-ML <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] libata fixes for v3.14-rc5

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Tejun Heo <> wrote:
> Just a couple patches blacklisting more broken devices.

Pulled. However:

>         /* devices that don't properly handle queued TRIM commands */
>         { "Micron_M500*",               NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
>         { "Crucial_CT???M500SSD1",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> +       { "Crucial_CT???M500SSD3",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },

If we know M500SSD1 and M500SSD3 are both broken the same way, and the
Micron_M500* is too (which is, as far as I know, the same device), why
the heck do we make the test that specific?

Why not just use Crucial_CT???M500* or something? The likelihood of
some new version of the same broken device coming up is small, and if
it does, we don't even care. Why would we risk it?

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