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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:07:21 +0200
From:   Hussam Al-Tayeb <>
Subject: Debug scsi message in linux 4.19.31

Hi. I'm seeing a debug message in linux stable kernel 4.19.31 with this

I am getting:
Mar 23 17:40:10 hades kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Optimal transfer size 0
bytes < PAGE_SIZE (4096 bytes)
Mar 23 17:40:10 hades kernel: sd 2:0:0:0: [sdb] Optimal transfer size 0
bytes < PAGE_SIZE (4096 bytes)
Mar 23 17:46:43 hades kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Optimal transfer size 0
bytes < PAGE_SIZE (4096 bytes)

sda and sdb are physically attached SATA mechanical disks (Western
Digital and Seagate, respectively).
sdc is a kingston usb flash drive. All three disks use ext4 luks
encrypted partitions.
Is the fact that it is reporting 0 as optimal transfer size something I
should worry about? Note that the the three storage devices are from
three different manufacturers.
This particular machine is a Lenovo Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6400 CPU @
2.70GHz with 16GB Kingston DDR4 ram.

I tried moving the root disk to another machine (a DELL Core I7 7700
with slightly faster ram from Samsung) and I saw the same message.

This seems like a patch that fits better in a hardware vendor or
operating system distributor tree than the upstream kernel. Shouldn't
stable tree kernels only contain direct fixes and regression fixes?
Does it really belong in an LTS kernel?

Please CC me in your reply as I am not subscribed to the list.
Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists