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]
Date:   Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:18:05 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Simon Arlott <simon@...iron.net>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: sd: stop SSD (non-rotational) disks before reboot

On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 06:31:25PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > For SSDs, I don't think an extra stop should ever be an issue.
> > 
> > Extra shutdowns will usually cause additional P/E cycles.
> 
> I am not so sure.  We're talking about enforcing clean shutdowns here
> (from the SSD PoV).
> 
> A system reboot takes enough time that the SSD is likely to do about the
> same amount of P cycles commiting to FLASH any important data that it
> would trigger by a shutdown sequence, simply because it should not keep
> important data in RAM for too long.  By extension, it would not increase
> E cycles either.
> 
> OTOH, unclean shutdowns *always* cause extra P/E, and that's if you're
> lucky enough for it to not cause anything much worse.

The point is - with a normal system that doesn't required your odd
reboot method we'll normally not shut down the SSD at all, and that
won't require a P/E cycle.

But the whole thing is a moot point - if you quirk your system to
require a poweroff to reboot the kernel should trat it as a power off
as far as shutdown/remove callbacks are concerned and everything will
just work as intended.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ