On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 11:34 -0400, Ewan D. Milne wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 10:35 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This is in reference to
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351305
> >
> > The problem is that some program (probably udisks2) periodically sends
> > the following ATA pass-through command to a USB-ATA bridge attached to
> > a Western Digital drive:
> >
> > 85062000 00000000 00000000 0000e500
>
> According to T10 SAT-4 this is an ATA PASS-THROUGH(16) command, with
> PROTOCOL=3 (non-data), CK_COND=1, COMMAND=E5h (the ATA command).
>
> >
> > I don't know what this command does (some sort of reset?). The command
> > fails and the device returns the following sense data:
> >
> > 72000000 0000000e 090c0000 00ff0000 00000000 0050
> >
> > I don't know how to decode this -- I don't have copies of the relevant
> > documents. Can anybody decode this for me?
>
> This is a current descriptor format sense data wih a single
> ATA Status Return sense data descriptor (beginning at 8 bytes into
> the sense data buffer 090c...) The relevant fields are COUNT=255 LBA=0
> and STATUS=50h (which I suspect is what is the interesting part).
>
> >
> > Anyway, the SCSI core treats it as a Hardware Error and puts warning
> > messages in the kernel log:
> >
> > [17244.280612] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdd] tag#0 FAILED Result: hostbyte=DID_ERROR
> > driverbyte=DRIVER_SENSE
> > [17244.280614] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdd] tag#0 Sense Key : Hardware Error [current]
> > [descriptor]
> > [17244.280616] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdd] tag#0 Add. Sense: No additional sense
> > information
> > [17244.280618] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdd] tag#0 CDB: ATA command pass through(16) 85
> > 06 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e5 00
> >
> > Is this really the right thing to do? Could it be that we are failing
> > to interpret this sense data correctly?
>
> With the 72000000 0000000e 090c0000 00ff0000 00000000 0050 sense data
> buffer above scsi_sense_key_string() should have returned "No Sense" as
> the array value is 0. Even if we somehow managed to fail to correctly
> interpret descriptor format sense vs. fixed format sense.
>
> >
> > Other commands provoke similar responses from the device, but without
> > obnoxious log messages. For example, the command:
> >
> > 85082e00 00000100 00000000 0000ec00
> >
> > fails with the following sense data:
> >
> > 72000000 0000000e 090c0000 00000000 00000000 0050
> >
> > and no output to the log. I don't know why the behavior is different.
> > There are other similar examples, with and without log messages.
>
> It seems more likely that somehow there is a path where the wrong or
> uninitialized sshdr structure is being passed to the logging routine.
>
> -Ewan
Oh, wait. You said USB-ATA bridge.
There is this code in drivers/usb/storage/transport.c:
Perhaps this is responsible. It is forcing the sense key to
HARDWARE_ERROR under certain conditions. That would cause the
logging message you see to be output.
/*
* We often get empty sense data. This could indicate that
* everything worked or that there was an unspecified
* problem. We have to decide which.
*/
if (sshdr.sense_key == 0 && sshdr.asc == 0 && sshdr.ascq == 0 &&
fm_ili == 0) {
/*
* If things are really okay, then let's show that.
* Zero out the sense buffer so the higher layers
* won't realize we did an unsolicited auto-sense.
*/
if (result == USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_GOOD) {
srb->result = SAM_STAT_GOOD;
srb->sense_buffer[0] = 0x0;
/*
* If there was a problem, report an unspecified
* hardware error to prevent the higher layers from
* entering an infinite retry loop.
*/
} else {
srb->result = DID_ERROR << 16;
if ((sshdr.response_code & 0x72) == 0x72)
srb->sense_buffer[1] = HARDWARE_ERROR;
else
srb->sense_buffer[2] = HARDWARE_ERROR;
}
}
>
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Alan Stern
> >
>
>
