On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 17:10 -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> In the log you posted, the drive posted 51/04 to your out-of-bounds
> request, but these are 59/04, do they span the end of the device or
> something?
As you can see in the error-log including in the Ubuntu bug report, the
51/04 errors ar
On 2/1/07, TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
short extract ---
DC202XX: Primary channel reset.
ide2: reset: success
hde: task_in_intr: status=0x59 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest
Error }
hde: task_in_intr: error=0x04 { DriveStatusError }
ide: failed opcode was: unknown
end_request: I/O err
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 14:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The recursion is a concern. Is there any way in which a cunningly-crafted
> device can cause sufficiently deep recursion to crash the kernel?
I did wonder about this, but couldn't think of an *elegant* way of
mirroring the extended_partit
On 2/1/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, from reading the replies I think we'd like to see some more
explanation of why this is necessary: are you really really sure that those
disks were incorrectly handling illegal sector numbers? Knowing the IBM
and Maxtor model numbers might
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:50:39 +
TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + if (!insane && is_extended_partition(p)) { /* check the
> extended partition */
> + data = read_dev_sector(bdev, START_SECT(p)*sector_size,
> ยง); /* fetch sector from cache */
> +
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:12:42 -0500
Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you may be barking up the wrong tree because IIRC, these
> requests for data beyond the end of the disk never make it to the drive;
> the kernel fails them in the block layer. There was a patch a while
> back
I think you may be barking up the wrong tree because IIRC, these
requests for data beyond the end of the disk never make it to the drive;
the kernel fails them in the block layer. There was a patch a while
back to fix the partition detection code to NOT request sectors beyond
the end of the di
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 22:20 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> It seems pretty unlikely that telling a hard drive to seek past its
> capacity would cause it to damage itself, that would be some pretty
> moronic firmware. Though, you never know - if it's true, let me know
> what kind of drives these
TJ wrote:
From: TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applies to: up-to and including 2.6.20-rc7
This rare but critical bug has the potential to cause a hardware failure on
disk drives by
allowing the system to repeatedly attempt to seek to sectors beyond the end of
the physical
disk, causing sustained 'h
From: TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applies to: up-to and including 2.6.20-rc7
Update to previous patch.
Fixed logical error in if() statements for conditional printk(). Replaced
bit-wise OR with AND.
Signed-off-by: TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- fs/partitions/msdos.tj.c2007-02-01 00:41:57.
From: TJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applies to: up-to and including 2.6.20-rc7
This rare but critical bug has the potential to cause a hardware failure on
disk drives by
allowing the system to repeatedly attempt to seek to sectors beyond the end of
the physical
disk, causing sustained 'head banging'.
11 matches
Mail list logo
