From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
Cc: James Bottomley <jbottomley@suse.de>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Erroneous handling of sense status in SCSI EH commands
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:59:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D3D317D.6060403@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D39F16A.5020002@cs.wisc.edu>
On 01/21/2011 09:49 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 01/21/2011 02:07 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> Consider a scenario where a SCSI EH command like TUR fails with a NOT
>> READY
>> status - MANUAL INTERVENTION REQUIRED (02/04/03). As evident in the
>> ASC/ASCQ
>> description, manual intervention is required in this case i.e. the
>> target wants
>> TUR to fail here so that the host administrator can take corrective
>> action.
>>
>> But this particular ASC/ASCQ is not handled in the scsi_check_sense,
>> which
>> ultimately causes scsi_eh_tur to erroneously report a SUCCESS (device
>> ready)
>> instead of the actual FAILURE state (device not ready).
>>
>> This patch converts scsi_check_sense() to return SOFT_ERROR in
>> cases where an error has been signalled via the sense code, but
>> we should not wake the error handler. This error code will be
>> reverted back to SUCCESS for normal command handling, but
>> scsi_eh_completed_normally() will convert it to FAILED.
>>
>> Reported-by: Martin George<marting@netapp.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke<hare@suse.de>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> index 45c7564..e86e62e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ static inline void scsi_eh_prt_fail_stats(struct
>> Scsi_Host *shost,
>> * @scmd: Cmd to have sense checked.
>> *
>> * Return value:
>> - * SUCCESS or FAILED or NEEDS_RETRY
>> + * SUCCESS or FAILED or NEEDS_RETRY or SOFT_ERROR
>> *
>> * Notes:
>> * When a deferred error is detected the current command has
>> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ static int scsi_check_sense(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
>>
>> case ABORTED_COMMAND:
>> if (sshdr.asc == 0x10) /* DIF */
>> - return SUCCESS;
>> + return SOFT_ERROR;
>>
>> return NEEDS_RETRY;
>> case NOT_READY:
>> @@ -324,19 +324,19 @@ static int scsi_check_sense(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
>> * Pass the UA upwards for a determination in the completion
>> * functions.
>> */
>> - return SUCCESS;
>> + return SOFT_ERROR;
>>
>
>
> For normal IO execution the UA, not ready, and illegal request handling
> in scsi_io_completion would determine that some of these are retryable
> conditions, but with the patch in the scsi_error.cs path we will return
> soft error and fail. Also a lot of these that were retryable were
> returned as success in the past, but with the patch are being failed.
>
No. scsi_check_sense() is not called from scsi_io_completion; that
just calls scsi_normalize_sense().
scsi_check_sense() is only called from
- scsi_eh_completed_normally()
- scsi_eh_stu()
- scsi_decide_disposition()
All of which have been checked against this patch.
scsi_io_completion() has it's own set of checks for sense codes
which I don't modify here.
> Martin made me the same bugzilla :) I was thinking we needed to make
> check_sense smarter or move some of the scsi_io_completion code to some
> lib helpers so scsi_error.c could call them.
>
> And does scsi_eh_stu need to be covnerted to check for soft error and
> failed.
>
No. scsi_eh_stu() needs to check if a START STOP UNIT command needs
to be send. The trigger for this is that scsi_check_sense() returns
FAILED:
list_for_each_entry(scmd, work_q, eh_entry)
if (scmd->device == sdev && SCSI_SENSE_VALID(scmd) &&
scsi_check_sense(scmd) == FAILED ) {
stu_scmd = scmd;
break;
}
if (!stu_scmd)
continue;
so this logic hasn't changed.
> Also if we did this patch, then I think we also have to convert the
> device handlers.
Not necessarily. This patch just allows check_sense() to return
an additional error code; the device handlers are not forced to
use them. If they don't things will work like before.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-24 7:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-21 8:07 [PATCH] scsi: Erroneous handling of sense status in SCSI EH commands Hannes Reinecke
2011-01-21 20:49 ` Mike Christie
2011-01-24 7:59 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2011-01-24 20:17 ` Mike Christie
2011-01-25 5:18 ` Mike Christie
2011-01-25 5:34 ` Mike Christie
2011-01-25 15:38 ` James Bottomley
2011-01-25 20:19 ` Mike Christie
2011-02-12 16:30 ` James Bottomley
2011-02-14 7:26 ` Hannes Reinecke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D3D317D.6060403@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=jbottomley@suse.de \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.