linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM

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]

Message-Id: <1170257071.3402.6.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:24:30 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
Cc:	Ric Wheeler <ric@....com>, "Eric D. Mudama" <edmudama@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, dougg@...que.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:13 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > For the MD case, this is what REQ_FAILFAST is for.

> I cannot find where SCSI honours that flag.  James?

Er, it's in scsi_error.c:scsi_decide_disposition():

      maybe_retry:

	/* we requeue for retry because the error was retryable, and
	 * the request was not marked fast fail.  Note that above,
	 * even if the request is marked fast fail, we still requeue
	 * for queue congestion conditions (QUEUE_FULL or BUSY) */
	if ((++scmd->retries) <= scmd->allowed
	    && !blk_noretry_request(scmd->request)) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		return NEEDS_RETRY;
	} else {
		/*
		 * no more retries - report this one back to upper level.
		 */
		return SUCCESS;
	}

> And for that matter, even when I patch SCSI so that it *does* honour it,
> I don't actually see the flag making it into the SCSI layer from above.
> 
> And I don't see where/how the block layer takes care when considering
> merge FAILFAST/READA requests with non FAILFAST/READA requests.
> To me, it looks perfectly happy to add non-FAILFAST/READA bios
> to a FAILFAST request, risking data loss if a lower-layer decides
> to honour the FAILFAST/READA flags.
> 
> So it's a pretty Good Thing(tm) that SCSI doesn't currently honour it. ;)

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/