linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors

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: <4C7BA670.2060303@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:39:12 +0200
From:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
Cc:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	michaelc@...wisc.edu, James.Bottomley@...e.de, tytso@....edu,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, jaxboe@...ionio.com, jack@...e.cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, swhiteho@...hat.com,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	vst@...b.net, rwheeler@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] training mpath to discern between SCSI errors

Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> 
>> Actually, I think we have two separate issues here:
>> 1) The need of having more detailed I/O errors even in the fs layer. This
>>    we've already discussed at the LSF, consensus here is to allow other
>>    errors than just 'EIO'.
>>    Instead of Mike's approach I would rather use existing error codes
>> here;
>>    this will make the transition somewhat easier.
>>    Initially I would propose to return 'ENOLINK' for a transport failure,
>>    'EIO' for a non-retryable failure on the target, and 'ENODEV' for a
>>    retryable failure on the target.
> 
>    Are you sure it's not vice versa: EIO for retryable and ENODEV for
> non-retryable failures. ENODEV looks more like permanent condition to me.
> 
Ok, can do.
And looking a the error numbers again, maybe we should be using 'EREMOTEIO'
for non-retryable failures.

So we would be ending with:

ENOLINK: transport failure
EIO: retryable remote failure
EREMOTEIO: non-retryable remote failure

Does that look okay?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@...e.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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/