Linux SCSI subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Niklas Cassel" <cassel@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Report the residual of a write
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 11:32:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260924113213.5E36B1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260924112127.3815255-18-cassel@kernel.org>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] scsi_debug: residual reporting bypassed in resp_write_scat() edge cases
--

commit 2c4fb6bce2173fbd341e31abb8babf6bd210996d
Author: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>

scsi: scsi_debug: Report the residual of a write

A write whose data buffer is larger than its transfer length leaves a
residual that the initiator is entitled to be told about. resp_read_dt0()
and resp_write_tape() report it, but the write paths for a disk do not,
so such a write completes with GOOD status and a residual of zero while
a READ of the same length into the same buffer reports it correctly.

> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_debug.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_debug.c
> index b64ae3ad300d8..fd80f66a86ac9 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_debug.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_debug.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -5350,6 +5352,13 @@ static int resp_write_scat(struct scsi_cmnd *scp,
>  		sg_off += num_by;
>  		cum_lb += num;
>  	}
> +	/*
> +	 * sg_off counts what the command asked for, which can exceed the
> +	 * buffer: lbdof is not validated against it, and a range is counted
> +	 * in full even if do_device_access() copied less.
> +	 */
> +	if (scsi_bufflen(scp) > sg_off)
> +		scsi_set_resid(scp, scsi_bufflen(scp) - sg_off);
>  	ret = 0;
>  err_out_unlock:
>  	sdeb_meta_write_unlock(sip);

[Severity: Medium]
Will this miss reporting residuals when resp_write_scat() returns early or
takes an error path?

For instance, if the initiator provides a data-out buffer but the command
has 0-length requests, the early return path in resp_write_scat() bypasses
the new residual reporting logic entirely:

	if ((num_lrd == 0) || (bt_len == 0))
		return 0;       /* T10 says these do-nothings are not errors */

Similarly, if error injection for recovered errors triggers during the
descriptor processing loop, the code jumps directly to err_out_unlock,
which bypasses the new residual calculation (unlike resp_write_dt0() where
the residual is set before the error injection block):

			if (sdebug_opts & SDEBUG_OPT_RECOVERED_ERR) {
				mk_sense_buffer(scp, RECOVERED_ERROR,
					FAILURE_PREDICTION_THRESHOLD_EXCEEDED);
				atomic_set(&sdeb_inject_pending, 0);
				ret = check_condition_result;
				goto err_out_unlock;

Could this cause an incorrect residual of 0 to be reported in these edge
cases, indicating to the initiator that the entire data-out buffer was
consumed when it was not?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260924112127.3815255-13-cassel@kernel.org?part=5

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-24 11:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-24 11:21 [PATCH v6 00/11] scsi: scsi_debug: fix zoned write validation Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 01/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Refuse a zoned device with a non-zero lowest aligned LBA Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 02/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Make atomic writes and ZBC emulation mutually exclusive Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 03/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Take the zone metadata lock before the data lock Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 04/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Evaluate scsi_debug_lbp() only once Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 05/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Report the residual of a write Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:32   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 06/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Enforce physical block alignment of zoned writes Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 07/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Do not write a partial physical block to a zoned device Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 08/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Advance the write pointer over the data written Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 09/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Refuse a short WRITE ATOMIC (16) before writing it Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 23:53   ` Damien Le Moal
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 10/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Map the region written by WRITE ATOMIC (16) Niklas Cassel
2026-09-24 11:21 ` [PATCH v6 11/11] scsi: scsi_debug: Validate the access parameters of " Niklas Cassel

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=20260924113213.5E36B1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=cassel@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /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