Re: [bisected] Re: todays git: WARNING: at drivers/ata/libata-sff.c:1017 ata_sff_hsm_move+0x45e/0x750()

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

Hello, I wrote:

>>>    All the S/G counts printed out were divisible by 4 (36 for 
>>> INQUIRY and 96 for REQUSET SENSE). It's the *actual* byte count for 
>>> the REQUEST SENSE that's no divisible. The SCSI/ATAPI devices are 
>>> free to sent less data than requested on non block transfer commands.
>
>> That is just fine - if the sg list is not corrupt or being mishandled 
>> and
>> the atapi pio code is not buggy.
>
>> RTFS a bit and it becomes obvious that the core libata code has a bug:
>
>    Oh, I have already... and saw where the issue could be. It just 
> wasn't obvious why 32-bit PIO triggered it.

  Got it now, however the issue doesn't seem as evident simple to me...

>> From libata-sff.c:
>>         /* consumed can be larger than count only for the last 
>> transfer */
>>         WARN_ON_ONCE(qc->cursg && count != consumed);
>>
>> The big clue turns out to be that the code doesn't match the comment.
>>
>> Next note the check on qc->cursg. If my input sg list is a 36 byte 
>> single
>> sg entry then qc->cursg should be NULL by the WARN_ON() - but it isn't.
>
>    I think it's still not NULL because qc->cursg_ofs == sg->length 
> check was *not* true right above, hence sg_next() wasn't called...
>
>> If qc->cursg is NULL when the sg_next() is run then we don't warn 
>> because
>> we are quite happy with the last segment being padded or underrunning.
>
>    I don't think that sg_next() is called on an underrun segment. And 
> here lies the mistake.
>
>> What we actually want to explode on is a case where we transfer more
>> bytes than are wanted and where there are more sg entries to perform 
>> - at
>> that point we would corrupt.
>
>> So at least one failure case is
>
>>     Core code issues an SG list for 96 bytes
>>     Drive indicates it wishes to return 18 bytes
>
>>     data_xfer transfers 18 bytes + 2 padding (correctly) -> 20 bytes

   Correctly indeed? I'm not at all sure it's correct to read an extra 
16-bit word off the device when it thinks it's already done with the 
data transfer. This is not the same as to read 16-bit word and ignore 
its MSB as it happened. The same concern about the writes... Note that 
the IDE code doesn't do this...

MBR, Sergei