linux-kernel - [PATCH 00/14] scsi: scsi_error: Introduce new error handle mechanism

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: <20250902055628.2524926-1-jiangjianjun3@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 13:56:28 +0800
From: JiangJianJun <jiangjianjun3@...wei.com>
To: <hare@...e.de>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <hewenliang4@...wei.com>,
	<yangyun50@...wei.com>, <wuyifeng10@...wei.com>, <yangxingui@...artners.com>
Subject: [PATCH 00/14] scsi: scsi_error: Introduce new error handle mechanism

>I fully agree that SCSI EH is in need of reworking. But adding 
>another layer of complexity on top of the existing one ... not sure.

Perhaps it would have been better to use only the error handler on the
device from the start. Users might wonder why a single disk failure
could cause other disks to become blocking.

>Additionally: TARGET RESET TMF is dead, and has been removed from SAM
>since several years. It really is not worthwhile implementing.

Hmm.

>Can't we take a simple step, and just try to have a non-blocking version
>of device reset?
>I think that should cover quite some issues already.

Do you think it's necessary to escalate the issue after the device reset
fails? Should we reset the bus or the host? 
Moreover, a failed device reset does not necessarily indicate a fault
with the target or host. 
And what means of "non-blocking"?