linux-kernel - Re: absurdly high "optimal_io

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: <545BB3AB.8070409@windriver.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:45:15 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: absurdly high "optimal_io_size" on Seagate SAS disk

On 11/06/2014 11:34 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com> writes:
>
> Chris> Perhaps the ST900MM0026 should be blacklisted as well?
>
> Sure. I'll widen the net a bit for that Seagate model.

That'd work, but is it the best way to go?  I mean, I found one report 
of a similar problem on an SSD (model number unknown).  In that case it 
was a near-UINT_MAX value as well.

The problem with the blacklist is that until someone patches it, the 
drive is broken.  And then it stays blacklisted even if the firmware 
gets fixed.

I'm wondering if it might not be better to just ignore all values larger 
than X (where X is whatever we think is the largest conceivable 
reasonable value).

Chris
--
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/