linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] scsi: libsas: check the ata device status by ata_dev

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, 18 Sep 2018 14:54:45 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:     <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <zhaohongjiang@...wei.com>, <hare@...e.com>,
        <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <jthumshirn@...e.de>, <hch@....de>,
        <huangdaode@...ilicon.com>, <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>,
        <miaoxie@...wei.com>, Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>,
        Tomas Henzl <thenzl@...hat.com>, <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] scsi: libsas: check the ata device status by
 ata_dev_enabled()

+

On 12/09/2018 09:29, Jason Yan wrote:
> When ata device IDENTIFY failed, the ata device status is
> ATA_DEV_UNKNOWN. The libata reported like:
>
> [113518.620433] ata5.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xec)
> [113518.653646] ata5.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
>
> But libsas verifies the device status by ata_dev_disabled(), which
> skiped ATA_DEV_UNKNOWN. This will make libsas think the ata device

/s/skiped/skipped/

> probing succeed the device cannot be actually brought up. And even the
> new bcast of this device will be considered as flutter and will not
> probe this device again.
>
> Change ata_dev_disabled() to !ata_dev_enabled() so that libsas can
> deal with this if the ata device probe failed. New bcasts can let us
> try to probe the device again and bring it up if it is fine to
> IDENTIFY.
>
> Tested-by: Zhou Yupeng <zhouyupeng1@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>

Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>

> CC: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
> CC: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
> CC: Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>
> CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> CC: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@...hat.com>
> CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> CC: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c
> index 64a958a99f6a..4f6cdf53e913 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_ata.c
> @@ -654,7 +654,7 @@ void sas_probe_sata(struct asd_sas_port *port)
>  		/* if libata could not bring the link up, don't surface
>  		 * the device
>  		 */
> -		if (ata_dev_disabled(sas_to_ata_dev(dev)))
> +		if (!ata_dev_enabled(sas_to_ata_dev(dev)))

I do wonder if ata_dev_disabled() needs to be updated to cover 
ATA_DEV_UNKNOWN also or even instead of this change?

>  			sas_fail_probe(dev, __func__, -ENODEV);
>  	}
>
>