* [PATCH 1/4] libfcoe: Fix Conflicting FCFs issue in the fabric
2013-05-21 17:44 [PATCH 0/4] libfc, libfcoe, fcoe updates for 3.10-rc Robert Love
@ 2013-05-21 17:44 ` Robert Love
2013-05-21 17:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] libfc: Correct check for initiator role Robert Love
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2013-05-21 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-scsi; +Cc: Krishna Mohan, Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi
From: Krishna Mohan <krmohan@cisco.com>
When multiple FCFs in use, and first FIP Advertisement received is
with "Available for Login" i.e A bit set to 0, FCF selection will fail.
The fix is to remove the assumption in the code that first FCF is only
allowed selectable FCF.
Consider the scenario fip->fcfs contains FCF1(fabricname X, marked A=0)
FCF2(fabricname Y, marked A=1). list_first_entry(first) points to FCF1
and 1st iteration we ignore the FCF and on 2nd iteration we compare
FCF1 & FCF2 fabric name and we fails to perform FCF selection.
Signed-off-by: Krishna Mohan <krmohan@cisco.com>
Reviewed-by: Bhanu Prakash Gollapudi <bprakash@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
---
drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe_ctlr.c | 15 +++++----------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe_ctlr.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe_ctlr.c
index a762472..4c77641 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe_ctlr.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe_ctlr.c
@@ -1548,9 +1548,6 @@ static struct fcoe_fcf *fcoe_ctlr_select(struct fcoe_ctlr *fip)
{
struct fcoe_fcf *fcf;
struct fcoe_fcf *best = fip->sel_fcf;
- struct fcoe_fcf *first;
-
- first = list_first_entry(&fip->fcfs, struct fcoe_fcf, list);
list_for_each_entry(fcf, &fip->fcfs, list) {
LIBFCOE_FIP_DBG(fip, "consider FCF fab %16.16llx "
@@ -1568,17 +1565,15 @@ static struct fcoe_fcf *fcoe_ctlr_select(struct fcoe_ctlr *fip)
"" : "un");
continue;
}
- if (fcf->fabric_name != first->fabric_name ||
- fcf->vfid != first->vfid ||
- fcf->fc_map != first->fc_map) {
+ if (!best || fcf->pri < best->pri || best->flogi_sent)
+ best = fcf;
+ if (fcf->fabric_name != best->fabric_name ||
+ fcf->vfid != best->vfid ||
+ fcf->fc_map != best->fc_map) {
LIBFCOE_FIP_DBG(fip, "Conflicting fabric, VFID, "
"or FC-MAP\n");
return NULL;
}
- if (fcf->flogi_sent)
- continue;
- if (!best || fcf->pri < best->pri || best->flogi_sent)
- best = fcf;
}
fip->sel_fcf = best;
if (best) {
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [PATCH 3/4] libfc: extend ex_lock to protect all of fc_seq_send
2013-05-21 17:44 [PATCH 0/4] libfc, libfcoe, fcoe updates for 3.10-rc Robert Love
2013-05-21 17:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] libfcoe: Fix Conflicting FCFs issue in the fabric Robert Love
2013-05-21 17:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] libfc: Correct check for initiator role Robert Love
@ 2013-05-21 17:44 ` Robert Love
2013-05-21 17:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] MAINTAINERS: Fix fcoe mailing list Robert Love
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2013-05-21 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-scsi; +Cc: Gris Ge, Neil Horman
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
This warning was reported recently:
WARNING: at drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_exch.c:478 fc_seq_send+0x14f/0x160 [libfc]()
(Not tainted)
Hardware name: ProLiant DL120 G7
Modules linked in: tcm_fc target_core_iblock target_core_file target_core_pscsi
target_core_mod configfs dm_round_robin dm_multipath 8021q garp stp llc bnx2fc
cnic uio fcoe libfcoe libfc scsi_transport_fc scsi_tgt autofs4 sunrpc
pcc_cpufreq ipv6 hpilo hpwdt e1000e microcode iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support
serio_raw shpchp ixgbe dca mdio sg ext4 mbcache jbd2 sd_mod crc_t10dif pata_acpi
ata_generic ata_piix hpsa dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod [last unloaded:
scsi_wait_scan]
Pid: 5464, comm: target_completi Not tainted 2.6.32-272.el6.x86_64 #1
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8106b747>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xc0
[<ffffffff8106b79a>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
[<ffffffffa025f7df>] ? fc_seq_send+0x14f/0x160 [libfc]
[<ffffffffa035cbce>] ? ft_queue_status+0x16e/0x210 [tcm_fc]
[<ffffffffa030a660>] ? target_complete_ok_work+0x0/0x4b0 [target_core_mod]
[<ffffffffa030a766>] ? target_complete_ok_work+0x106/0x4b0 [target_core_mod]
[<ffffffffa030a660>] ? target_complete_ok_work+0x0/0x4b0 [target_core_mod]
[<ffffffff8108c760>] ? worker_thread+0x170/0x2a0
[<ffffffff810920d0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
[<ffffffff8108c5f0>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x2a0
[<ffffffff81091d66>] ? kthread+0x96/0xa0
[<ffffffff8100c14a>] ? child_rip+0xa/0x20
[<ffffffff81091cd0>] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0
[<ffffffff8100c140>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
It occurs because fc_seq_send can have multiple contexts executing within it at
the same time, and fc_seq_send doesn't consistently use the ep->ex_lock that
protects this structure. Because of that, its possible for one context to clear
the INIT bit in the ep->esb_state field while another checks it, leading to the
above stack trace generated by the WARN_ON in the function.
We should probably undertake the effort to convert access to the fc_exch
structures to use rcu, but that a larger work item. To just fix this specific
issue, we can just extend the ex_lock protection through the entire fc_seq_send
path
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Reported-by: Gris Ge <fge@redhat.com>
CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
---
drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_exch.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_exch.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_exch.c
index c772d8d..8b928c6 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_exch.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_exch.c
@@ -463,13 +463,7 @@ static void fc_exch_delete(struct fc_exch *ep)
fc_exch_release(ep); /* drop hold for exch in mp */
}
-/**
- * fc_seq_send() - Send a frame using existing sequence/exchange pair
- * @lport: The local port that the exchange will be sent on
- * @sp: The sequence to be sent
- * @fp: The frame to be sent on the exchange
- */
-static int fc_seq_send(struct fc_lport *lport, struct fc_seq *sp,
+static int fc_seq_send_locked(struct fc_lport *lport, struct fc_seq *sp,
struct fc_frame *fp)
{
struct fc_exch *ep;
@@ -479,7 +473,7 @@ static int fc_seq_send(struct fc_lport *lport, struct fc_seq *sp,
u8 fh_type = fh->fh_type;
ep = fc_seq_exch(sp);
- WARN_ON((ep->esb_stat & ESB_ST_SEQ_INIT) != ESB_ST_SEQ_INIT);
+ WARN_ON(!(ep->esb_stat & ESB_ST_SEQ_INIT));
f_ctl = ntoh24(fh->fh_f_ctl);
fc_exch_setup_hdr(ep, fp, f_ctl);
@@ -502,17 +496,34 @@ static int fc_seq_send(struct fc_lport *lport, struct fc_seq *sp,
error = lport->tt.frame_send(lport, fp);
if (fh_type == FC_TYPE_BLS)
- return error;
+ goto out;
/*
* Update the exchange and sequence flags,
* assuming all frames for the sequence have been sent.
* We can only be called to send once for each sequence.
*/
- spin_lock_bh(&ep->ex_lock);
ep->f_ctl = f_ctl & ~FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ; /* not first seq */
if (f_ctl & FC_FC_SEQ_INIT)
ep->esb_stat &= ~ESB_ST_SEQ_INIT;
+out:
+ return error;
+}
+
+/**
+ * fc_seq_send() - Send a frame using existing sequence/exchange pair
+ * @lport: The local port that the exchange will be sent on
+ * @sp: The sequence to be sent
+ * @fp: The frame to be sent on the exchange
+ */
+static int fc_seq_send(struct fc_lport *lport, struct fc_seq *sp,
+ struct fc_frame *fp)
+{
+ struct fc_exch *ep;
+ int error;
+ ep = fc_seq_exch(sp);
+ spin_lock_bh(&ep->ex_lock);
+ error = fc_seq_send_locked(lport, sp, fp);
spin_unlock_bh(&ep->ex_lock);
return error;
}
@@ -629,7 +640,7 @@ static int fc_exch_abort_locked(struct fc_exch *ep,
if (fp) {
fc_fill_fc_hdr(fp, FC_RCTL_BA_ABTS, ep->did, ep->sid,
FC_TYPE_BLS, FC_FC_END_SEQ | FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);
- error = fc_seq_send(ep->lp, sp, fp);
+ error = fc_seq_send_locked(ep->lp, sp, fp);
} else
error = -ENOBUFS;
return error;
@@ -1132,7 +1143,7 @@ static void fc_seq_send_last(struct fc_seq *sp, struct fc_frame *fp,
f_ctl = FC_FC_LAST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ | FC_FC_SEQ_INIT;
f_ctl |= ep->f_ctl;
fc_fill_fc_hdr(fp, rctl, ep->did, ep->sid, fh_type, f_ctl, 0);
- fc_seq_send(ep->lp, sp, fp);
+ fc_seq_send_locked(ep->lp, sp, fp);
}
/**
@@ -1307,8 +1318,8 @@ static void fc_exch_recv_abts(struct fc_exch *ep, struct fc_frame *rx_fp)
ap->ba_low_seq_cnt = htons(sp->cnt);
}
sp = fc_seq_start_next_locked(sp);
- spin_unlock_bh(&ep->ex_lock);
fc_seq_send_last(sp, fp, FC_RCTL_BA_ACC, FC_TYPE_BLS);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&ep->ex_lock);
fc_frame_free(rx_fp);
return;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread