X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2DC79396ECBB
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
	header.from=SystematicSw.ab.ca
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org;
	spf=none smtp.mailfrom=brian DOT inglis AT systematicsw DOT ab DOT ca
X-Authority-Analysis:	v=2.3 cv=ecemg4MH c=1 sm=1 tr=0
	a=kiZT5GMN3KAWqtYcXc+/4Q==:117 a=kiZT5GMN3KAWqtYcXc+/4Q==:17
	a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=w_pzkKWiAAAA:8 a=ioyUOmMPAiA2c8Vb-UcA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
	a=sRI3_1zDfAgwuvI8zelB:22
Subject:	Re: [cygwin] DD bug fails to wipe last 48 sectors of a disk
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<DB7PR01MB5193A18F1D947ED4C276CD25D5980 AT DB7PR01MB5193 DOT eurprd01 DOT prod DOT exchangelabs DOT com>
	<1d1801d64677$bea56050$3bf020f0$@pdinc.us>
	<DB7PR01MB5193CC1C7630FB13B81B9DBAD5980 AT DB7PR01MB5193 DOT eurprd01 DOT prod DOT exchangelabs DOT com>
	<60bf1507-4edb-a03f-ec14-07e1ab7f0d94 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
	<DB7PR01MB519396195ADB3E3E1217B22BD5940 AT DB7PR01MB5193 DOT eurprd01 DOT prod DOT exchangelabs DOT com>
From:	Brian Inglis <Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
Autocrypt:	addr=Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca; prefer-encrypt=mutual;
	keydata=
	mDMEXopx8xYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAnCK0qv/xwUCCZQoA9BHRYpstERrspfT0NkUWQVuoePa0
	LkJyaWFuIEluZ2xpcyA8QnJpYW4uSW5nbGlzQFN5c3RlbWF0aWNTdy5hYi5jYT6IlgQTFggA
	PhYhBMM5/lbU970GBS2bZB62lxu92I8YBQJeinHzAhsDBQkJZgGABQsJCAcCBhUKCQgLAgQW
	AgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEB62lxu92I8Y0ioBAI8xrggNxziAVmr+Xm6nnyjoujMqWcq3oEhlYGAO
	WacZAQDFtdDx2koSVSoOmfaOyRTbIWSf9/Cjai29060fsmdsDLg4BF6KcfMSCisGAQQBl1UB
	BQEBB0Awv8kHI2PaEgViDqzbnoe8B9KMHoBZLS92HdC7ZPh8HQMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMM5
	/lbU970GBS2bZB62lxu92I8YBQJeinHzAhsMBQkJZgGAAAoJEB62lxu92I8YZwUBAJw/74rF
	IyaSsGI7ewCdCy88Lce/kdwX7zGwid+f8NZ3AQC/ezTFFi5obXnyMxZJN464nPXiggtT9gN5
	RSyTY8X+AQ==
Organization:	Systematic Software
Message-ID:	<1b13fde4-0834-cd8b-0673-c2b14bbaa372@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:33:10 -0600
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<DB7PR01MB519396195ADB3E3E1217B22BD5940@DB7PR01MB5193.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope:	MS4wfJcP1yKDIBMnGDyHsCAldSVH8lmaaHKdIUBhGS1oxQKNzPbyb6+YGn4wmtiuoXxn8P2xfYMeeieCVXuVTrD5c0iKiHxes70HCmP5HV6x6xRT03jbHMWv
	O4dE0WqfzGsrBFwmO08lyNK0p7QciFjIQcbmA7sV/ay9Oeo2cKa1HNBM2FPK6GgxfFFnu45xiZVMew==
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
	KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
	TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<http://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<http://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>

On 2020-06-23 09:28, Hashim Aziz via Cygwin wrote:
> I hadn't checked with 512 byte block sizes because of the amount of time it would have taken, but sure enough have just finished trying with bs=512 and no block size at all (so dd's default block size, which is either 512 or 1024) and although each wipe took over 24 hours, they did indeed wipe all of the sectors. So it seems that there's a bug with regards to how Cygwin handles the last block when a large (i.e. sane) block size is selected, and that this bug doesn't occur on actual UNIX-based systems.
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Cygwin <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com> on behalf of Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
> Sent: 20 June 2020 9:26 PM
> To: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [cygwin] DD bug fails to wipe last 48 sectors of a disk
> 
> On 6/20/2020 1:31 PM, Hashim Aziz via Cygwin wrote:
>> To reproduce simply run the following command on a drive (obviously, this will irreversibly wipe all data):
>>
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX bs=4M status=progress
>>
>> Both drives were attached via internal SATA (by way of a PCIE to SATA Host Bus Adapter).
>>
>> Cygwin was running in an elevated window as dd cannot run in Cygwin without administrator access, at least not on Windows 10 and not when dealing with raw disks. I was running Avast the first time I discovered this, and am currently running Windows Defender, so doubt that the AV is the cause of this.
>>
>> The hard drives are a Western Digital WD10PURX-64E5EY0 (Serial: WD-WCC4J6HX189U) and a Kingston SV200S3128G (Serial: 12BA315PKAWK).
>>
>> I just ran DD for Windows 0.6beta3 with variations of the following command:
>>
>> dd.exe if=/dev/zero of=\\.\PHYSICALDRIVEX --progress bs=4M
>>
>> ...and can confirm that the bug also manifests here, but in a slightly different way - irrespective of the disk or block size, it fails to wipe the last 176 sectors of the drive.
> 
> I was going to ask: even with block size 512 bytes?  But I guess you checked that ...

I don't have the facilities to test, and there appear to be *NO* Windows
documentation details on error condition handling, but my suspicion is that Unix
reads and writes fail only *AFTER* reading or writing at the end of the device,
but Windows reads and writes extents may be checked and failed *BEFORE* reading
or writing any data near the end of the device.
If the actual Windows error code returned is generic, Cygwin would need to
pre-check the device size as Windows does, and reduce read and write sizes to
the allowed maximum at the end of the device.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
[Data in IEC units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.]
--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -