On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 01:29:25PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 07:18:33PM +0000, Igor Pylypiv wrote: > > SCSI/ATA Translation-5 (SAT-5) Table 209 — "ATA command results" > > specifies that SATL shall generate sense data for ATA PASS-THROUGH > > commands when either CK_COND is set or when ATA_ERR or ATA_DF status > > bits are set. > > > > ata_eh_analyze_tf() sets AC_ERR_DEV bit in qc->err_mask when ATA_ERR > > or ATA_DF bits are set. It looks like qc->err_mask can be used as > > an error indicator but ata_eh_link_autopsy() clears AC_ERR_DEV bit > > when ATA_QCFLAG_SENSE_VALID is set. This effectively clears the error > > indication if no other bits were set in qc->err_mask. > > The reason why libata clears the err_mask when having sense data, > is because the upper layer, i.e. SCSI, should determine what to do > with the command, if there is sense data. > > For a non-passthrough command, this will be done by > scsi_io_completion_action(): > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c#L1084-L1087 > > > However, if there is any bits set in cmd->result, > scsi_io_completion_nz_result() will be called: > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c#L1052-L1053 > > which will do the following for a passthrough command: > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c#L969-L978 > which will set blk_stat. > > After that, scsi_io_completion() which check blk_stat and if it is a > scsi_noretry_cmd(): > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c#L1073-L1078 > > A passthrough command will return true for scsi_noretry_cmd(), so > scsi_io_completion_action() should NOT get called for a passthough command. > > So IIUC, for a non-passthrough command, scsi_io_completion_action() will > decide what to do depending on the sense data, but a passthrough command will > get finished with the sense data, leaving the user to decide what to do. > Thank you for the detailed explanation, Niklas! I was looking at a related logic in ata_eh_link_report(): https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c#L2359-L2360 Is my understanding correct that if we have ATA_QCFLAG_SENSE_VALID set and qc->err_mask is zero then we don't want to report the error to user since SCSI might decide that it is not an error based on the sense data? > > > > > ata_scsi_qc_complete() should not use qc->err_mask for ATA PASS-THROUGH > > commands because qc->err_mask can be zero (i.e. "no error") even when > > the corresponding command has failed with ATA_ERR/ATA_DF bits set. > > > > Additionally, the presence of valid sense data (ATA_QCFLAG_SENSE_VALID) > > should not prevent SATL from generating sense data for ATA PASS-THROUGH. > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Pylypiv <ipylypiv@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > index 032cf11d0bcc..79e8103ef3a9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c > > @@ -1632,8 +1632,8 @@ static void ata_scsi_qc_complete(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) > > !(qc->flags & ATA_QCFLAG_SENSE_VALID); > > > > /* For ATA pass thru (SAT) commands, generate a sense block if > > - * user mandated it or if there's an error. Note that if we > > - * generate because the user forced us to [CK_COND =1], a check > > + * user mandated it or if ATA_ERR or ATA_DF bits are set. Note that > > + * if we generate because the user forced us to [CK_COND=1], a check > > * condition is generated and the ATA register values are returned > > * whether the command completed successfully or not. If there > > * was no error, we use the following sense data: > > @@ -1641,7 +1641,7 @@ static void ata_scsi_qc_complete(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc) > > * asc,ascq = ATA PASS-THROUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE > > */ > > if (((cdb[0] == ATA_16) || (cdb[0] == ATA_12)) && > > - ((cdb[2] & 0x20) || need_sense)) > > + ((cdb[2] & 0x20) || (qc->result_tf.status & (ATA_ERR | ATA_DF)))) > > qc->result_tf can only be used if qc->flags has ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF set, > otherwise it can contain bogus data. > You don't seem to check if ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF is set. > > ata_scsi_pass_thru() does set ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF. > Thanks for pointing this out! Looks like ATA PASS-TRHOUGH case is fine since the flag is always set by ata_scsi_pass_thru() as you pointed out. Do we still want to add the check even though we know that it is always set by ata_scsi_pass_thru()? If the answer is "yes", I wonder if we should use the ATA_QCFLAG_RTF_FILLED flag instead? Currently it is used for ahci only but looks like it can be expanded to other drivers. inic_qc_fill_rtf() will benefit from this change because it is not always setting the status/error values: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/ata/sata_inic162x.c#L583-L586 For the non passthough case qc->result_tf in ata_gen_ata_sense() is also valid because fill_result_tf() is being called for failed commands regardless of the ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF flag: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc4/drivers/ata/libata-core.c#L4856-L4873 In this case using ATA_QCFLAG_RTF_FILLED will be more accurate because fill_result_tf() is being called even when ATA_QCFLAG_RESULT_TF is not set. With that said I'm not sure if it makes sense to update all of the ATA error handling to start checking for the ATA_QCFLAG_RTF_FILLED flag. What are your thoughts on this? > > > ata_gen_passthru_sense(qc); > > else if (need_sense) > > ata_gen_ata_sense(qc); > > -- > > 2.45.2.627.g7a2c4fd464-goog > > Thank you, Igor