On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:39 -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Those send out taskfile commands ... my point is that the SAT SCSI
> > commands only come down the SCSI paths, so without additional processing
> > in the ATAPI path they're just packaged up as PACKET commands and never
> > unwrapped and sent out as taskfiles. If you think about it, cdrecord
> > sending BLANK via SG_IO to an ATAPI device would never work if we
> > interpreted ATA_12 in the ATAPI path...
>
> James,
> This doesn't only affect libata. The MPT Fusion SAS HBAs
> have a SATL in firmware. It also make sense to put SATLs
> close to the end device; for example: in a USB mass storage
> bridge **, dito sbp2, and in a SAS enclosure (in which case
> really useful SCSI commands like PERSISTENT RESERVE could
> be implemented in front of SATA disks).
Actually, I think we're making somewhat gentle movements in the opposite
direction: towards not having a translation layer at all. There have
just been recent changes in the block layer that will facilitate our
labelling the request with a cmd_type field. We can use this to signal
the type of command payload in the request and hopefully avoid having to
encapsulate it in SCSI.
> IMO we need to have a concept of near and far transport.
> The near transport is what the LLD or local bridge (e.g.
> libata is a virtual target) sees. The far transport is
> what the lu sees (e.g. for cd/dvd drives that is usually
> (S)ATAPI). So if the near transport does not limit cdb
> length then the command should be sent to the target. If
> the target can't either:
> - send the command unaltered to the lu, or
> - bridge the command to the far transport, or
> - interpret the command itself (e.g. REPORT LUNS + ATA_16)
> then it can report an error.
Actually, for this particular issue, I'm going to suggest a variant of
this, which is to allow the transport class to vet the command (and
definitively allow it or deny it without having to go through the length
and other checks). The max_cmd_length is almost a historical remnant
from the few intelligent SPI controllers that had an in-built maximum
CDB length (I suspect qla1280 is the best current example since it's
capped at 12).
> I seem to be fighting a losing battle against the mindset
> of trying to process errors at the highest possible level
> and the even worse Unix block layer habit of trying to
> foresee errors a priori.
> Taking this example: should the block layer reject pass-
> through SCSI commands due to command length? Of
> course not, it shouldn't even know about SCSI command sets.
> Should the cdrom driver block 16 byte SCSI commands?
> No, because MMC imposes not limit in the cdb length.
> It is the _transport_ that should block the command,
> if it so chooses. In this case the transport is a
> virtual one between sr/sg and libata and libata should
> recognize SCSI ATA PASS-THROUGH (12+16) cdbs as
> transport related and not (directly) to be sent to
> the logical unit. And it is at this level we should
> add the wrinkle that if the pdt=5 (cd or dvd) then
> don't translate ATA_12. [I have already been around this
> loop with Luben and his SATL: sorted with the minimum
> of fuss.]
As I read the code Mark sent me, current libata will only accept ATA_16
for ATAPI devices (whether type 5 or not) ... pehaps this needs to be
altered?
> We also have the concept of the block layer as a common
> security filter and some folks want to merge (i.e.
> read _eliminate_ the sg driver's filter) the block layer
> and the sg filter. Well sg's filter is SPC based with
> some SBC knowledge and the block layer's filter is
> heavily MMC based ("designed" to trick/facilitate cdrecord).
> How to treat the ATA_16 command? Well at the moment sg will
> require read-write permissions whereas I think the block
> layer will require root (or CAP_IO_RAW) permissions. As a
> point of reference, Windows documentation only identifies
> one class of commands that it will block in its pass through
> (SPT) and those are of the EXTENDED COPY type. That one is
> way too powerful for OS folks to allow the users to get
> their hands on.
Er, well, as you know, I've never been a fan of this static list. I
thought Jens was going to put us all out of our misery by making the
list settable per device by root and thus shovel the problem off onto
the distros?
> ** I have been told that USB disk enclosures being designed
> now will include at a SATL. This will mean smartmontools
> (version 5.37 and later) and hdparm (assuming that Mark is
> looking at adding SATL pass through support) will just work
> seamlessly. SAT does not include any sub-addressing support
> so it doesn't help in trying to obtain diagnostic access
> to physical (SATA) disks behind a logical SCSI (RAID) disk
> device.
That doesn't surprise me. One could argue that a lot of USB disk
devices already include a SATL since they're usually cheap ATA devices
under the covers ...
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
