linux-kernel - Re: boot failure with 4.13.0-rc6 due to ATA errors

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

Message-ID: <20170829160211.lfyo7jmvhdatay72@khazad-dum.debian.net>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:02:11 -0300
From:   Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Robert Elliott <elliott@....com>
Subject: Re: boot failure with 4.13.0-rc6 due to ATA errors

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:51:02PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > > ATA-8 and later mirrors the TRUSTED COMPUTING SUPPORTED bit in word 48 of
> > > > > the IDENTIFY DEVICE data.  Check this before issuing a READ LOG PAGE
> > > > > command to avoid issues with buggy devices.  The only downside is that
> > > > > we can't support Security Send / Receive for a device with an older
> > > > > revision due to the conflicting use of this field in earlier
> > > > > specifications.
> > > 
> > > Christoph, I'm gonna revert the horkage patch and apply this one.  If
> > > you can think of a better way to do this, please let me know.
> > 
> > The one thing that comes to mind would be an additional patch to allow
> > people with ATA-7 to bypass the identify device data, and rely just on
> > the read log page check, based on a kernel command line parameter.
> > 
> > If we get enough sucessful reports to make it worth it, an whitelist
> > could be added...
> 
> If the ones we miss are the ones based on old revisions, does it
> matter?  If we have to, we can just whitelist those devices and I

Well, only if the opal functionality would actually be worth something
on those old revisions I guess.  It is certainly possible that it would
be better off disabled.

> don't expect there to be many.

Indeed, but we will not get much on the way of people testing this if we
don't give them a kernel parameter ;-)

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh