linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] libsas: Use static sas event pool to appease sas event lost

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:13:32 +0800
From:   wangyijing <wangyijing@...wei.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:     <chenqilin2@...wei.com>, <hare@...e.com>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <huangdaode@...ilicon.com>,
        <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <zhaohongjiang@...wei.com>,
        <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        <yanaijie@...wei.com>, <hch@....de>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        <emilne@...hat.com>, <thenzl@...hat.com>, <wefu@...hat.com>,
        <charles.chenxin@...wei.com>, <chenweilong@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] libsas: Use static sas event pool to appease sas
 event lost

>>>> There is no special meaning for the pool size, if flutter of > 25 events, notify sas events will return error, and the further step work is depending on LLDD drivers.
>>>> I hope libsas could do more work in this case, but now it seems a little difficult, this patch may be a interim fix, until we find a perfect solution.
>>>
>>> The principal of having a fixed-sized pool is ok, even though the pool size needs more consideration.
>>>
>>> However my issue is how to handle pool exhaustion. For a start, relaying info to the LLDD that the event notification failed is probably not the way to go. I only now noticed "scsi: sas: scsi_queue_work can fail, so make callers aware" made it into the kernel; as I mentioned in response to this patch, the LLDD does not know how to handle this (and no LLDDs do actually handle this).
>>>
>>> I would say it is better to shut down the PHY from libsas (As Dan mentioned in the v1 series) when the pool exhausts, under the assumption that the PHY has gone into some erroneous state. The user can later re-enable the PHY from sysfs, if required.
>>
>> I considered this suggestion, and what I am worried about are, first if we disable phy once the sas event pool exhausts, it may hurt the pending sas event process which has been queued,
> 
> I don't see how it affects currently queued events - they should just be processed normally. As for LLDD reporting events when the pool is exhausted, they are just lost.

So if we disable a phy, it's nothing affect to the already queued sas event process, which including access the phy to find target device ?

> 
>> second, if phy was disabled, and no one trigger the reenable by sysfs, the LLDD has no way to post new sas phy events.
> 
> For the extreme scenario of pool becoming exhausted and PHY being disabled, it should remain disabled until user takes some action to fix originating problem.

So we should print explicit message to tell user what's happen and how to fix it.

Thanks!
Yijing.

> 
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Yijing.
>>
>>>
>>> Much appreciated,
>>> John
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Yijing.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> 
> 
> 
> .
>