linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: remove unlock+relock cycle in ata_scsi

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: <4CE3F097.6040202@garzik.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:11:19 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: remove unlock+relock cycle in ata_scsi_queuecmd

On 11/17/2010 05:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jeff, Linus.
>
> On 11/17/2010 09:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Looking solely at the SCSI code (ie. ignoring LLD code), it seems
>> like the magic number zero for serial_number is signaling a boolean
>> condition "are we an EH command?"
>>
>> EH tests this at the very beginning of the abort/reset/explode error
>> handling sequence, presumably to avoid recursive EH invocations
>> (scsi_try_to_abort_cmd).
>>
>> So maybe an EH expert (Tejun?) can correct me here, but I think we
>> may be able to completely the lock/get-serial/unlock sequence from
>> libata, as long as scsi_init_cmd_errh() reliably sets an "I am an EH
>> command" flag.
>>
>> Would be nice if true...
>
> Yeah, it's actually nice (for once).  libata doesn't use or care about
> scmd->serial_number at all.  The SCSI EH path you mentioned above is
> not applicable as libata implements its eh_strategy_handler and SCSI
> only calls scsi_try_to_abort_cmd() for the default EH handler,
> scsi_unjam_host().
>
> We'll need to test a bit to make sure everything is okay but I'm
> fairly certain removing it won't break anything fundamental.  If
> something breaks at all, it would be some silly easy-to-fix thing.

It would be surprising if there is breakage, because serial_number is 
only tested in two places in the generic kernel:

scsi_cmd_get_serial() -- where it simply avoids the zero value -- and 
scsi_try_to_abort_cmd().

	Jeff


--
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/