Re: [PATCH] libata-core More robust parsing for multi_count(v3)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Mark Lord wrote:
Make libata more robust when parsing the multi_count
fields from a drive's identify data.  This prevents us from
attempting to use dubious multi_count values ad infinitum.

Reset dev->multi_count to zero and reprobe it each time
through this routine, as it can change on device reset.

Also ensure that the reported "maximum" value is valid
and is a power of two, and that the reported "count" value
is valid and also a power of two.  And that the "count"
value is not greater than the "maximum" value.

Signed-off-by: Mark Lord <mlord@xxxxxxxxx>

--- upstream/drivers/ata/libata-core.c.orig 2009-03-18 11:08:27.000000000 -0400
+++ new/drivers/ata/libata-core.c    2009-03-18 12:09:31.000000000 -0400
@@ -2389,6 +2389,7 @@
    dev->cylinders = 0;
    dev->heads = 0;
    dev->sectors = 0;
+    dev->multi_count = 0;

    /*
     * common ATA, ATAPI feature tests
@@ -2426,8 +2427,16 @@

        dev->n_sectors = ata_id_n_sectors(id);

-        if (dev->id[59] & 0x100)
-            dev->multi_count = dev->id[59] & 0xff;
+        /* get/validate current R/W Multiple count setting */
+        if ((dev->id[47] >> 8) == 0x80 && (dev->id[59] & 0x100)) {
+            unsigned int max = dev->id[47] & 0xff;
+            unsigned int cnt = dev->id[59] & 0xff;
+            /* only recognize/allow powers of two here */
+            if (cnt && cnt <= max && (max & (max - 1)) == 0) {
+                if ((cnt & (cnt - 1)) == 0)
+                    dev->multi_count = cnt;
+            }
+        }

        if (ata_id_has_lba(id)) {
            const char *lba_desc;
..

Note that this patch still allows (dev->multi_count == 1),
as before, though this may or may not be a good idea.

Right now, we should probably just treat "1" the same as "0",
and not use R/W multi commands with that setting.

But at some point, libata will gain HDIO_SET_MULTCOUNT support
and/or a sysfs attr for it.  At which point there's no reason
to force policy on a multi_count of 1.

Opinions?

We can change that behaviour with a second, follow-up, patch if need be.

Cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux