From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754023AbZBQAgS (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:36:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750740AbZBQAgE (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:36:04 -0500 Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:4231 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750729AbZBQAgB (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:36:01 -0500 Message-ID: <499A066A.7060509@ru.mvista.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:35:54 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Lord Cc: Robert Hancock , linux-kernel , ide , Jeff Garzik , =?UTF-8?B?SGFubm8gQsO2Y2s=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: Don't trust current capacity values in identify words 57-58 References: <4999CA54.1060306@gmail.com> <4999F032.6060107@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <4999F032.6060107@rtr.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. Mark Lord wrote: >> Hanno Böck reported a problem where an old Conner CP30254 240MB hard >> drive >> was reported as 1.1TB in capacity by libata: >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/13/134 >> >> This was caused by libata trusting the drive's reported current >> capacity in sectors in identify words 57 and 58 if the drive does not >> support LBA and the >> current CHS translation values appear valid. Unfortunately it seems >> older >> ATA specs were vague about what this field should contain and a >> number of drives >> used values with wrong byte order or that were totally bogus. There's no >> unique information that it conveys and so we can just calculate the >> number >> of sectors from the reported current CHS values. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock > .. >> } else { >> if (ata_id_current_chs_valid(id)) >> - return ata_id_u32(id, 57); >> + return id[54] * id[55] * id[56]; >> else >> return id[1] * id[3] * id[6]; > .. > > NAK. That's not quite correct, either. > > The LBA capacity can be larger than the CHS capacity, > so we have to use the reported LBA values if at all possible. > > That's why ata_id_is_lba_capacity_ok() exists, > and why it looks so peculiar. I think that checking LBA validity is a matter of another patch. This patch in itself should be sufficient. > Some of those early drives really did require that kind of logic. I hightly doubt that this 240 MB drive is LBA capable at all. > Cheers MBR, Sergei