linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-v2 02/17] target: Add DIF CHECK

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: <1390429008.5567.975.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:16:48 -0800
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...erainc.com>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Oren Duer <oren@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 02/17] target: Add DIF CHECK_CONDITION ASC/ASCQ
 exception cases

On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 18:44 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> On 1/19/2014 4:44 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
> >
> > This patch adds support for DIF related CHECK_CONDITION ASC/ASCQ
> > exception cases into transport_send_check_condition_and_sense().
> >
> > This includes:
> >
> >    LOGICAL BLOCK GUARD CHECK FAILED
> >    LOGICAL BLOCK APPLICATION TAG CHECK FAILED
> >    LOGICAL BLOCK REFERENCE TAG CHECK FAILED
> >
> > that used by DIF TYPE1 and TYPE3 failure cases.
> >
> > Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
> > Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>
> > Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
> > ---
> >   drivers/target/target_core_transport.c |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   include/target/target_core_base.h      |    3 +++
> >   2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> > index 18c828d..fa4fc04 100644
> > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> > @@ -2674,6 +2674,36 @@ transport_send_check_condition_and_sense(struct se_cmd *cmd,
> >   		buffer[SPC_ASC_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x1d;
> >   		buffer[SPC_ASCQ_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x00;
> >   		break;
> > +	case TCM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_GUARD_CHECK_FAILED:
> > +		/* CURRENT ERROR */
> > +		buffer[0] = 0x70;
> > +		buffer[SPC_ADD_SENSE_LEN_OFFSET] = 10;
> > +		/* ILLEGAL REQUEST */
> > +		buffer[SPC_SENSE_KEY_OFFSET] = ILLEGAL_REQUEST;
> > +		/* LOGICAL BLOCK GUARD CHECK FAILED */
> > +		buffer[SPC_ASC_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x10;
> > +		buffer[SPC_ASCQ_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x01;
> > +		break;
> > +	case TCM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_APP_TAG_CHECK_FAILED:
> > +		/* CURRENT ERROR */
> > +		buffer[0] = 0x70;
> > +		buffer[SPC_ADD_SENSE_LEN_OFFSET] = 10;
> > +		/* ILLEGAL REQUEST */
> > +		buffer[SPC_SENSE_KEY_OFFSET] = ILLEGAL_REQUEST;
> > +		/* LOGICAL BLOCK APPLICATION TAG CHECK FAILED */
> > +		buffer[SPC_ASC_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x10;
> > +		buffer[SPC_ASCQ_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x02;
> > +		break;
> > +	case TCM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_REF_TAG_CHECK_FAILED:
> > +		/* CURRENT ERROR */
> > +		buffer[0] = 0x70;
> > +		buffer[SPC_ADD_SENSE_LEN_OFFSET] = 10;
> > +		/* ILLEGAL REQUEST */
> > +		buffer[SPC_SENSE_KEY_OFFSET] = ILLEGAL_REQUEST;
> > +		/* LOGICAL BLOCK REFERENCE TAG CHECK FAILED */
> > +		buffer[SPC_ASC_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x10;
> > +		buffer[SPC_ASCQ_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x03;
> > +		break;
> 
> Hey Nic,
> 
> I think we missed the failed LBA here. AFAICT According to SPC-4, a DIF
> error should be accompanied by Information sense-data descriptor with 
> the (first) failed
> sector in the information field. This means that this routine should be 
> ready to accept a
> u32 bad_sector or something. I'm not sure how much of a must it really is.
> 
> Let me prepare a patch...
> 

Ah yes, good catch.  This is what se_cmd->block_num was intended for..

Care to add these assignments to target_core_sbc.c:sbc_dif_verify_*
failures as well..?

--nab

--
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/