From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5508E1E1 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:17:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 95A921D156 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:16:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E1D7A48D2F for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:16:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:16:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230824135111.621128-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230824135111.621128-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.656 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu] fix #2874: SATA: avoid unsolicited write to sector 0 during reset X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:17:02 -0000 Am 24.08.23 um 15:51 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > If there is a pending DMA operation during ide_bus_reset(), the fact > that the IDEstate is already reset before the operation is canceled > can be problematic. In particular, ide_dma_cb() might be called and > then use the reset IDEstate which contains the signature after the > reset. When used to construct the IO operation this leads to > ide_get_sector() returning 0 and nsector being 1. This is particularly > bad, because a write command will thus destroy the first sector which > often contains a partition table or similar. > > Upstream discussion: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-08/msg04239.html > > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner Ping