From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: scsi: Generalise last_sector_bug; fixes regression and potential future issues on USB cardreaders
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:26:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1217100375.3908.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4888565B.4020102@tuffmail.co.uk>
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 11:15 +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> The last_sector_bug flag was added to work around a bug in certain usb
> cardreaders, where they would crash if a multiple sector read included the
> last sector. The original implementation avoids this by e.g. splitting an 8
> sector read which includes the last sector into a 7 sector read, and a single
> sector read for the last sector. The flag is enabled for all USB devices.
>
> This revealed a second bug in other usb cardreaders, which crash when they
> get a multiple sector read which stops 1 sector short of the last sector.
> Affected hardware includes the Kingston "MobileLite" external USB cardreader
> and the internal USB cardreader on the Asus EeePC.
>
> Extend the last_sector_bug workaround to ensure that any access which touches
> the last 8 hardware sectors of the device is a single sector long. Requests
> are shrunk as necessary to meet this constraint.
>
> This gives us a safety margin against potential unknown or future bugs
> affecting multi-sector access to the end of the device. The two known bugs
> only affect the last 2 sectors. However, they suggest that these devices
> are prone to fencepost errors and that multi-sector access to the end of the
> device is not well tested. Popular OS's use multi-sector accesses, but they
> rarely read the last few sectors. Linux (with udev & vol_id) automatically
> reads sectors from the end of the device on insertion. It is assumed that
> single sector accesses are more thoroughly tested during development.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>
> Tested-by: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index 01cefbb..2415a1b 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -406,13 +406,23 @@ static int sd_prep_fn(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Some devices (some sdcards for one) don't like it if the
> - * last sector gets read in a larger then 1 sector read.
> + * Some sd cardreaders can't handle multisector accesses which touch
> + * the last one or two hardware sectors. There are likely to be even
> + * buggier devices, so apply a workaround to the last eight sectors.
> */
> - if (unlikely(sdp->last_sector_bug &&
> - rq->nr_sectors > sdp->sector_size / 512 &&
> - block + this_count == get_capacity(disk)))
> - this_count -= sdp->sector_size / 512;
> + if (sdp->last_sector_bug) {
This should be unlikely() as the previous one was
> + unsigned threshold = get_capacity(disk) - 8 * (sdp->sector_size / 512);
This can't be an unsigned, it has to be sector_t otherwise it could
overflow on large capacity drives.
I can also see that someone will find a drive that needs the last 16 or
something sectors, so perhaps the bare 8 should be a nice #define in
sd.h (comment above would need altering too).
> + if (block + this_count <= threshold) {
This should be likely() as well.
> + ; /* Okay as is */
> + } else if (block < threshold) {
> + /* Access up to the threshold but not beyond */
> + this_count = threshold - block;
> + } else {
> + /* Access only a single hardware sector */
> + this_count = sdp->sector_size / 512;
> + }
> + }
>
> SCSI_LOG_HLQUEUE(2, scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, SCpnt, "block=%llu\n",
> (unsigned long long)block));
> diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_device.h b/include/scsi/scsi_device.h
> index f6a9fe0..0d8d9c1 100644
> --- a/include/scsi/scsi_device.h
> +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_device.h
> @@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ struct scsi_device {
> unsigned fix_capacity:1; /* READ_CAPACITY is too high by 1 */
> unsigned guess_capacity:1; /* READ_CAPACITY might be too high by 1 */
> unsigned retry_hwerror:1; /* Retry HARDWARE_ERROR */
> - unsigned last_sector_bug:1; /* Always read last sector in a 1 sector read */
> + unsigned last_sector_bug:1; /* do not use multisector accesses on
> + the last 8 hardware sectors */
>
> DECLARE_BITMAP(supported_events, SDEV_EVT_MAXBITS); /* supported events */
> struct list_head event_list; /* asserted events */
Everything else looks fine ... do a quick turn around and I'll slide it
under the merge window.
Thanks,
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-26 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4888524D.9070906@tuffmail.co.uk>
2008-07-24 10:15 ` scsi: Generalise last_sector_bug; fixes regression and potential future issues on USB cardreaders Alan Jenkins
2008-07-26 19:26 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2008-07-27 8:36 ` Alan Jenkins
2008-07-27 8:38 ` [PATCH] " Alan Jenkins
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=1217100375.3908.12.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox