linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] dm mpath: Interface for explicit probing of active paths

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: <86402acdc74de0ed42f41fea0f3ac55af56e0cdb.camel@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 17:18:08 +0200
From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Benjamin Marzinski
	 <bmarzins@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, hreitz@...hat.com, 
	mpatocka@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] dm mpath: Interface for explicit probing of active
 paths

On Thu, 2025-05-15 at 13:09 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> However, EBADE handling dates back to 2011 (commit 63583cca745f,
> "[SCSI] 
> Add detailed SCSI I/O errors", 2011-02-12) and yet the Windows tests
> for 
> PR were failing before QEMU switched to SG_IO for reads and writes. 
> I 
> guess I have to try reverting that and retest, though.

Thanks! This makes me realize that we could summarize the goal for
future efforts (independent of the current patch set) roughly like
this:

"Emulate a SCSI disk on top of a (host) multipath device in a way that
1) failover works properly (like it would work for regular IO from the
host itself), 
2) Windows tests for PR (plus test case X, Y, ...) can be run
successfully".

Does this make sense? It implies that PR commands don't just need to be
forwarded appropriately, we also need to pass meaningful error codes
back to the guest.

Martin