From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: cd burning with plextor drives. Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:57:41 -0600 Message-ID: <20060730055741.GA4442@parisc-linux.org> References: <20060729045249.GA23398@redhat.com> <20060729111240.GG13095@suse.de> <1154180419.9447.61.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <44CBAB4B.7050308@torque.net> <44CBC115.2080401@torque.net> <1154211186.2903.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:12742 "EHLO palinux.external.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751140AbWG3F5n (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:57:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1154211186.2903.66.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones , Jens Axboe , James Bottomley , Douglas Gilbert On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 12:13:06AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > (As a historical oddity - there _was_ this bug in some drive that would > > corrupt the firmware by mistake, though - I think we _did_ actually fry > > some drives by sending it a "cache flush" command that it wasn't > > expecting, and that it turned into firmware reload thing or something. I > > think Alan Cox knows all the gruesome details, but that we could > > definitely blame on bad hardware.. > > since you asked for it... > > a certain distribution shipped a preproduction version of a packet > writing patch or it was some barrier thing, I forgot, which would end up > sending an *ATA* "cache flush" command to ATAPI drives that didn't claim > to understand that command range. A certain model of cdrom drive (LG?) > actually had that same command byte code as "flash firmware". > > Arguably it's a very stupid value to pick, but it's also not technically > a drive bug; the drive explicitly claimed to not understand the command > set in question, and that distro kernel sent it anyway. Actually, the standard does prohibit these command values from being reused for different purposes. http://lwn.net/Articles/55815/