linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:54:53 -0700
From:   Arun Easi <aeasi@...vell.com>
To:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
CC:     Nilesh Javali <njavali@...vell.com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] qla2xxx: Return EBUSY on fcport deletion

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, 9:41am, Daniel Wagner wrote:

> When the fcport is about to be deleted we should return EBUSY instead
> of ENODEV. Only for EBUSY the request will be requeued in a multipath
> setup.
> 
> Also in case we have a valid qpair but the firmware has not yet
> started return EBUSY to avoid dropping the request.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
> ---
> 
> v2: rebased on mkp/staging
> 
>  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_nvme.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_nvme.c b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_nvme.c
> index 2cd9bd288910..fded1e3bc9e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_nvme.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_nvme.c
> @@ -555,8 +555,11 @@ static int qla_nvme_post_cmd(struct nvme_fc_local_port *lport,
>  
>  	fcport = qla_rport->fcport;
>  
> -	if (!qpair || !fcport || (qpair && !qpair->fw_started) ||
> +	if ((qpair && !qpair->fw_started) ||
>  	    (fcport && fcport->deleted))
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +
> +	if (!qpair || !fcport)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  
>  	vha = fcport->vha;
> 

Please move up the "(!qpair || !fcport)" check; you can avoid the 
qpair/fcport check in the first "if" condition, then.

Regards,
-Arun