On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 09:30:45AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 4/22/21 4:17 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 08:08:41AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:14:56PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >>> On 4/21/21 9:55 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>>> Hello Guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> fnic uses the following way to walk scsi commands in failure handling,
> >>>> which is obvious wrong, because caller of scsi_host_find_tag has to
> >>>> guarantee that the tag is active.
> >>>>
> >>>> for (tag = 0; tag < fnic->fnic_max_tag_id; tag++) {
> >>>> ...
> >>>> sc = scsi_host_find_tag(fnic->lport->host, tag);
> >>>> ...
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix the issue by using blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to walk
> >>>> request/scsi_command.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks,
> >>>> Ming
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ming Lei (5):
> >>>> scsi: fnic: use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to walk scsi commands in
> >>>> fnic_terminate_rport_io
> >>>> scsi: fnic: use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to walk scsi commands in
> >>>> fnic_clean_pending_aborts
> >>>> scsi: fnic: use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to walk scsi commands in
> >>>> fnic_cleanup_io
> >>>> scsi: fnic: use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to walk scsi commands in
> >>>> fnic_rport_exch_reset
> >>>> scsi: fnic: use blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() to walk scsi commands in
> >>>> fnic_is_abts_pending
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_scsi.c | 933 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 493 insertions(+), 440 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Satish Kharat <satishkh@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: David Jeffery <djeffery@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>> Well, this is actually not that easy for fnic.
> >>> Problem is the reset hack hch put in some time ago (cf
> >>> fnic_host_start_tag()), which will cause any TMF to use a tag which is _not_
> >>> visible to the busy iter.
> >>
> >> 'git grep -n fnic_host_start_tag ./' shows nothing.
> >>
> >>> That will cause the iter to miss any TMF, with unpredictable results if a
> >>> TMF is running at the same time than, say, a link bounce.
> >>
> >> Wrt. linus tree or next tree, I don't see any issue wrt. your concern.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I have folded this as part of my patchset for reserved commands in SCSI;
> >>> that way fnic can use 'normal' tags for TMFs, which are then visible to the
> >>> busy iter and life's good.
> >>
> >> No, this fix is one bug fix, which can't depend on your reserved
> >> command in SCSI, and they need to be backported to stable tree too.
> >
> > Hi Hannes,
> >
> > We have customers report on this issue, could you please let us know
> > if you will post out one bug-fix only version?
> >
> And so have we, and indeed we have the same bug reports.
> So I'll be splitting off those patches and send it as a stand-alone
> patchset.
>
That is great!
Glad to give an review after it is posted out.
Thanks,
Ming
