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:	Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:42:03 -0500
From:	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
To:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>
CC:	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 08/27/2014 09:31 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 07:54 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Not without proper testing.
> Currently we cannot rescan existing devices; the inquiry string is
> nailed to the sdev structure. The only way to really refresh the
> information is to delete it and rescan it again.

How are distros handling 0x6/0x3f/0x0e (report luns changed) when it
gets passed to userspace? Is everyone kicking off a new full (add and
delete) scan to handle this or logging it? Is the driver returning this
when the LUNs change?

Also is the driver getting a 0x5/0x25/0 (invalid LUN) when the LUN does
not exist, or is it just getting that SRB_STATUS_INVALID_LUN error code?
--
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/