linux-kernel - Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

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: <1202263296.2220.130.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
Date:	Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:01:36 -0800
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	matteo@...et.it, tomof@....org, mangoo@...g.org, vst@...b.net,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
	scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel

On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 10:29 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:09:15 +0100
> Matteo Tescione <matteo@...et.it> wrote:
> 
> > On 5-02-2008 14:38, "FUJITA Tomonori" <tomof@....org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:14:01 +0100
> > > Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> James Bottomley schrieb:
> > >> 
> > >>> These are both features being independently worked on, are they not?
> > >>> Even if they weren't, the combination of the size of SCST in kernel plus
> > >>> the problem of having to find a migration path for the current STGT
> > >>> users still looks to me to involve the greater amount of work.
> > >> 
> > >> I don't want to be mean, but does anyone actually use STGT in
> > >> production? Seriously?
> > >> 
> > >> In the latest development version of STGT, it's only possible to stop
> > >> the tgtd target daemon using KILL / 9 signal - which also means all
> > >> iSCSI initiator connections are corrupted when tgtd target daemon is
> > >> started again (kernel upgrade, target daemon upgrade, server reboot etc.).
> > > 
> > > I don't know what "iSCSI initiator connections are corrupted"
> > > mean. But if you reboot a server, how can an iSCSI target
> > > implementation keep iSCSI tcp connections?
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> Imagine you have to reboot all your NFS clients when you reboot your NFS
> > >> server. Not only that - your data is probably corrupted, or at least the
> > >> filesystem deserves checking...
> > 

The TCP connection will drop, remember that the TCP connection state for
one side has completely vanished.  Depending on iSCSI/iSER
ErrorRecoveryLevel that is set, this will mean:

1) Session Recovery, ERL=0 - Restarting the entire nexus and all
connections across all of the possible subnets or comm-links.  All
outstanding un-StatSN acknowledged commands will be returned back to the
SCSI subsystem with RETRY status.  Once a single connection has been
reestablished to start the nexus, the CDBs will be resent.

2) Connection Recovery, ERL=2 - CDBs from the failed connection(s) will
be retried (nothing changes in the PDU) to fill the iSCSI CmdSN ordering
gap, or be explictly retried with TMR TASK_REASSIGN for ones already
acknowledged by the ExpCmdSN that are returned to the initiator in
response packets or by way of unsolicited NopINs.

> > Don't know if matters, but in my setup (iscsi on top of drbd+heartbeat)
> > rebooting the primary server doesn't affect my iscsi traffic, SCST correctly
> > manages stop/crash, by sending unit attention to clients on reconnect.
> > Drbd+heartbeat correctly manages those things too.
> > Still from an end-user POV, i was able to reboot/survive a crash only with
> > SCST, IETD still has reconnect problems and STGT are even worst.
> 
> Please tell us on stgt-devel mailing list if you see problems. We will
> try to fix them.
> 

FYI, the LIO code also supports rmmoding iscsi_target_mod while at full
10 Gb/sec speed.  I think it should be a requirement to be able to
control per initiator, per portal group, per LUN, per device, per HBA in
the design without restarting any other objects.

--nab

> Thanks,
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/