Re: [PATCH] libata: Don't trust current capacity values in identify words 57-58

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

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 <hancockrwd@gmail.com>
> ..
>>      } 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