From: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Steffen Maier <maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Is the possible cross-talking between unrelated file-descriptors on bsg-device by design?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:56:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919145632.GB28979@bblock-ThinkPad-W530> (raw)
Hello linux-block,
I wrote some tests recently to test patches against bsg.c and bsg-lib.c,
and while writing those I noticed something strange:
When you use the write() and read() call on multiple file-descriptors
for a single bsg-device (FC or SCSI), it is possible that you get
cross-talk between those different file-descriptors.
E.g.: You have two independent processes open a FD on /dev/bsg/fc_host0
and you send commands via write() in both processes, when they both do
read() later on - to read the response for the commands they send before
-, it is possible that process A gets the response (Sense-Data,
FC-Protocol-Data, ...) for a command that process B wrote and vis-a-vis.
I noticed this because in my tests I 'tag' each command I send with
write() via a value I write into the usr_ptr field of sg_io_v4. When I
later user read() to receive responses I check for this tag in a
hash-table and so can look up the original command. When I used this and
spawned multiple processes with the same target bsg-device, I got
responses for commands I don't have tags for in my hash-table, so they
were written by an other process. This never happend when I only spawn
one test-process.
This seems awfully contra-productive.. so much that I don't see any
point in allowing users to open more than one FD per bsg-device, because
that would inevitably lead to very hard to debug 'bugs'. And I wonder if
this is really by design or some regression that happend over time.
I looked at the code in bsg.c and yes, it seems this is what is coded
right now. We have a hash-table which manages all 'struct bsg_device's
who are indexed by device-minors, so one hash-table entry per
device-node.
So eh, long talk short question, is that intended?
Beste Gr��e / Best regards,
- Benjamin Block
--
Linux on z Systems Development / IBM Systems & Technology Group
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitz. AufsR.: Martina Koederitz / Gesch�ftsf�hrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: B�blingen / Registergericht: AmtsG Stuttgart, HRB 243294
next reply other threads:[~2017-09-19 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-19 14:56 Benjamin Block [this message]
2017-09-19 18:16 ` Is the possible cross-talking between unrelated file-descriptors on bsg-device by design? Douglas Gilbert
2017-09-21 18:54 ` Benjamin Block
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=20170919145632.GB28979@bblock-ThinkPad-W530 \
--to=bblock@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox