On March 2, 2017 11:05:05 AM PST, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: >On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 10:36:17 -0800 >James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote: > >> On March 2, 2017 10:23:24 AM PST, Stephen Hemminger ><step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: >> >On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:25:14 +0100 >> >Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.de> wrote: >> > >> >> On 03/02/2017 02:40 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:56:15 +0100 >> >> > Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:01:35AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig >wrote: >> > >> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 07:54:12AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger >> >wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/block.git/commitdiff/148cff67b401e2229c076c0ea418712654be77e4 >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> It appears that is already in the code I am testing in >> >linux-next... >> >> >>> >> >> >>> It's in -next now, but it wasn't at the time you reported the > >> >bug. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> And it would sortof explain the bug if the INQUIRY data is >> >correct >> >> >>> in the scatterlist, but we ignore it, given that >scsi_probe_lun >> >> >>> ignores the result based on sense data. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Can you check what happens with the horrible hack below: >> >> >> >> >> >> Strike that - we're checking result later, so this can't be the > >> >case. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now the other interesting thing is the memset in >__scsi_exectute, >> >> >> which looks very suspicious. Try the following please: >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> >> >> index 3e32dc954c3c..22f4fb550561 100644 >> >> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> >> >> @@ -253,7 +253,8 @@ static int __scsi_execute(struct >scsi_device >> >*sdev, const unsigned char *cmd, >> >> >> * and prevent security leaks by zeroing out the excess data. >> >> >> */ >> >> >> if (unlikely(rq->resid_len > 0 && rq->resid_len <= bufflen)) >> >> >> - memset(buffer + (bufflen - rq->resid_len), 0, >rq->resid_len); >> >> >> +// memset(buffer + (bufflen - rq->resid_len), 0, >rq->resid_len); >> >> >> + printk_ratelimited("%s: got resid %d\n", __func__, >> >rq->resid_len); >> >> >> >> >> >> if (resid) >> >> >> *resid = rq->resid_len; >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Still fails but does print resid on some of the later INQUIRY >> >commands (not the initial one). >> >> > >> >> Can you test what happens if you blank out the storvsc_drv >> >workaround: >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c >b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c >> >> index 585e54f..c36f42d 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c >> >> @@ -1060,13 +1060,13 @@ static void >storvsc_on_io_completion(struct >> >> storvsc_device *stor_device, >> >> * We do this so we can distinguish truly fatal failues >> >> * (srb status == 0x4) and off-line the device in that >case. >> >> */ >> >> - >> >> +#if 0 >> >> if ((stor_pkt->vm_srb.cdb[0] == INQUIRY) || >> >> (stor_pkt->vm_srb.cdb[0] == MODE_SENSE)) { >> >> vstor_packet->vm_srb.scsi_status = 0; >> >> vstor_packet->vm_srb.srb_status = >> >SRB_STATUS_SUCCESS; >> >> } >> >> - >> >> +#endif >> >> >> >> /* Copy over the status...etc */ >> >> stor_pkt->vm_srb.scsi_status = >> >vstor_packet->vm_srb.scsi_status; >> >> >> >> It might thappen that we're fail to interpret the 'Device not >> >present' >> >> status correctly (which will happen for non-connected DVDs) >causing >> >the >> >> SCSI stack to make incorrect decisions later on. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Hannes >> > >> >There are several oddities about the host SCSI interface that I see: >> > 1. The host bus seems to report up to 6 devices even though only 2 >are >> > present (Disk and CDROM). >> >2. The CDROM emulation doesn't report the same status as a real >device. >> > 3. The host emulation of SCSI doesn't support all the page codes >which >> > is why there is the hack. >> > >> >But as James said, these don't appear to be related to the failure >> >because >> >the code worked before and only in post 4.11 merege is there a >problem. >> >> Your wait for the hang trace is the most suggestive. It says we're >waiting for a partition read to the spurious device. Previously this >would have failed or timed out, so this seems to be the root cause. >> >> James >> >> > >Where is the number of valid LUN's determined during the scan process?
Depends. If you can do a report lun scan then that's definitive. You seem to be probing (SCSI_probe_and_add_lun) and you make us think there's something there by responding wrongly to the initial inquiry. James -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
