linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Force discovery of LUNs that may have been removed.

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:54:31 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc:	hare@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devel@...uxdriverproject.org, ohering@...e.com,
	jbottomley@...allels.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Force discovery of LUNs that
 may have been removed.

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 08:09:48PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> The host asks the guest to scan when a LUN is removed or added.
> The only way a guest can identify the removed LUN is when an I/O is
> attempted on a removed LUN - the SRB status code indicates that the LUN
> is invalid. We currently handle this SRB status and remove the device.
> 
> Rather than waiting for an I/O to remove the device, force the discovery of
> LUNs that may have been removed prior to discovering LUNs that may have
> been added.

This looks pretty reasonable to me, but I wonder if we should move this
up to common code so that it happens for any host rescan triggered by
sysfs or other drivers as well.

--
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/