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  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:   Sun, 17 May 2020 14:16:00 -0500
From:   Mike Christie <>
To:     Lance Digby <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH target] target: Add initiatorname to NON_EXISTENT_LUN

On 5/16/20 6:29 PM, Lance Digby wrote:
> Mike,  Thanks for the review!
>   The pr_err  Detected NON_EXISTENT_LUN is the error messages issued
> for the TCM_NON_EXISTENT_LUN retcode so I believe they are the same.
>   Simply scanning for the wrong lun on an initiator will generate this
> error on the target but not generate an error on the initiator. And I
> have seen installs, with a lot of initiators, automate the scanning of
> such luns incorrectly deemed missing.
>   While this looks like a simple problem it can take days to get
> access or the tcp traces to sort it out.
>    Within the same routine there is another pr_err for
> TCM_WRITE_PROTECTED that I did not add the initiatorname to as I
> thought this would leave a heavy footprint on the initiator. If you

I'm not sure what you mean by heavy footprint on the initiator part means.

I would say do whatever is helpful to you to debug the problem. For
TCM_WRITE_PROTECTED I'm not sure the initiatorname is helpful. I think
the target name and tpg would be useful, because I think you sometimes
set it at the tpg level then it gets inherited by the LU. But I think
it's a pain to get to the target name from this code path, so I wouldn't
worry about adding it now.

> believe this should be changed for consistency please let me know and
> I will add this and change to nacl->initiatorname.

Just to make sure we are on the same page. I was just commenting about
the other NON_EXISTENT_LUN instace in transport_lookup_tmr_lun. I just
thought we would want/need the same info there.

> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mike Christie <> wrote:
>> On 5/13/20 11:01 PM, Lance Digby wrote:
>>> The NON_EXISTENT_LUN error can be written without an error condition
>>>  on the initiator responsible. Adding the initiatorname to this message
>>>  will reduce the effort required to fix this when many initiators are
>>> supported by a target.
>>> Signed-off-by: Lance Digby <>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/target/target_core_device.c | 5 +++--
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
>>> index 4cee113..604dea0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
>>> @@ -100,9 +100,10 @@
>>>                */
>>>               if (unpacked_lun != 0) {
>>>                       pr_err("TARGET_CORE[%s]: Detected NON_EXISTENT_LUN"
>>> -                             " Access for 0x%08llx\n",
>>> +                             " Access for 0x%08llx from %s\n",
>>>                               se_cmd->se_tfo->fabric_name,
>>> -                             unpacked_lun);
>>> +                             unpacked_lun,
>>> +                             se_sess->se_node_acl->initiatorname);
>> You can do nacl->initiatorname.
>> Do you also want add the name to the tmr case? It's probably not common,
>> but the error message would be consistent.
>>>                       return TCM_NON_EXISTENT_LUN;
>>>               }

Powered by blists - more mailing lists