Re: [PATCH 4/5] target: user: Fix sense data handling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nicholas,

On 7/7/17 13:50, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> Hey MNC & Co,
> 
> On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 12:44 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>> On 06/28/2017 12:58 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> If the user request handler completed the request with a CHECK CONDITION
>>> status, tcmu_handle_completion() copies the command entry sense data
>>> into the session request structure sense data. However, the sense data
>>> length indicated by the field scsi_sense_length is not set and equal to
>>> 0, resulting in the copy being a no-op and failure to propagate the
>>> sense data back to the initiator. To fix this, properly set the session
>>> command sense data length and also set the session command
>>> SCF_TRANSPORT_TASK_SENSE flag to indicate that the command has valid
>>> sense data.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/target/target_core_user.c | 4 +++-
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>>> index beb5f09..7426b4c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>>> @@ -831,7 +831,9 @@ static void tcmu_handle_completion(struct tcmu_cmd *cmd, struct tcmu_cmd_entry *
>>>  		entry->rsp.scsi_status = SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION;
>>>  	} else if (entry->rsp.scsi_status == SAM_STAT_CHECK_CONDITION) {
>>>  		memcpy(se_cmd->sense_buffer, entry->rsp.sense_buffer,
>>> -			       se_cmd->scsi_sense_length);
>>> +		       TRANSPORT_SENSE_BUFFER);
>>> +		se_cmd->scsi_sense_length = TRANSPORT_SENSE_BUFFER;
>>> +		se_cmd->se_cmd_flags |= SCF_TRANSPORT_TASK_SENSE;
>>>  	} else if (se_cmd->se_cmd_flags & SCF_BIDI) {
>>>  		/* Get Data-In buffer before clean up */
>>>  		gather_data_area(udev, cmd, true);
>>>
>>
>> I have a patch similar to this and 5/5 in my set:
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg15430.html
>>
>> If yours gets merged first then I will build my set over them, so patch
>> looks ok to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <mchristi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The RFC patches above from May 31st weren't merged because I thought you
> where going to send out a second series..

My apologies. I have been busy with other things and could not get to that.

> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg15505.html
> 
> Since that hasn't been the case, I'll go ahead and merge the bugfixes in
> patches #1-6 for v4.13 now.  :)
> 
> Please resend patches #7-13 as post v4.13 items at your earliest
> convenience.

I will retest first thing Monday the merge with Mikes series and send
incremental fixes if any is needed.

Thank you.

Best regards.


-- 
Damien Le Moal,
Western Digital



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux