linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: fix hung_task when change host from recovery to running via sysfs

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]

Message-ID: <2259bccc-b7dc-e5b8-1efd-1deaf4864ae4@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 10:57:53 -0500
From:   Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
To:     Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "yebin (H)" <yebin10@...wei.com>
Cc:     Ye Bin <yebin@...weicloud.com>, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: fix hung_task when change host from recovery to
 running via sysfs

On 3/23/23 5:21 AM, Benjamin Block wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 09:24:32AM +0800, yebin (H) wrote:
>> On 2023/3/21 22:22, Benjamin Block wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 04:42:04PM +0800, Ye Bin wrote:
>>>> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
>>>>
>>>> When do follow test:
>>>> Step1: echo  "recovery" > /sys/class/scsi_host/host0/state
>>>
>>> Hmm, that make me wonder, what potential use-case this is for? Just
>>> testing?
>>
>> Thank you for your reply.
>> Actually, I'm looking for a way to temporarily stop sending IO to the
>> driver.
>> Setting the state of the host to recovery can do this, but I changed
>> the state to running and found that the process could not be woken up.
>> I don't know what the purpose of designing this sysfs interface was.
>> But this modification can solve the effect I want to achieve.
> 
> My first thought when seeing this was that maybe we should also limit
> this interface to say `SHOST_RUNNING` and `SHOST_RECOVERY` (similar to
> what is done in `store_state_field()`).
>     That would limit the amount of corner cases drastically.
> 
> And in case of setting `SHOST_RUNNING` after the scsi host was set to
> `SHOST_RECOVERY`, we could also make use of the already existing
> function `scsi_restart_operations()` to handle the restart in the same
> way as EH does.
> 

I agree we should limit the states we can set. It doesn't make sense for
userspace to be able to set states like SHOST_CANCEL and I think it would
later break functions like scsi_remove_host.

Maybe instead of allowing SHOST_RECOVERY to be used by userspace we want
a new state SHOST_BLOCKED which just does the specific operation we want.
If we re-use SHOST_RECOVERY for userspace blocking IO there could be issues
later on because that state also means we are going to be performing the eh
callouts and not just stopping IO. Or maybe instead of a different state
 we just add another shost field similar to tmf_in_progress which forces
scsi_queue_rq to not queue IO to the drivers.