Re: [PATCH 8/9] mtip32xx: abort secure erase operation if the device is mounted
From: Asai Thambi SP
Date: Tue May 12 2015 - 20:39:26 EST
On 5/12/2015 8:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 05/11/2015 06:56 PM, Asai Thambi SP wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Sam Bradshaw <sbradshaw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Asai Thambi S P <asamymuthupa@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c b/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
>> index 0b223e3..f8c12e1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c
>> @@ -2147,6 +2147,18 @@ static int exec_drive_taskfile(struct driver_data *dd,
>> fis.lba_hi,
>> fis.device);
>>
>> + /* Check for secure erase while fs mounted */
>> + if ((fis.command == ATA_CMD_SEC_ERASE_PREP) ||
>> + (fis.command == ATA_CMD_SEC_ERASE_UNIT) ||
>> + (fis.command == 0xFC && fis.features == 0x12)) {
>> + if (dd->bdev && dd->bdev->bd_holders > 0) {
>> + dev_warn(&dd->pdev->dev, "Drive erase aborted due to non-zero refcount (%d)\n",
>> + dd->bdev->bd_holders);
>> + err = -ERESTARTSYS;
>> + goto abort;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> I don't like this. If you want to do something like this, why not claim before these commands and unclaim after? If the claim fails, fail the command.
>
Not aware of bd_claim(). Thanks for the input. I will look into that.
--
Regards,
Asai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/