On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Martin and Matthew:
>
> Since you guys added scsi_vpd_inquiry() and scsi_get_vpd_page() plus
> sd_read_block_limits() and sd_read_block_characteristics(), I'm
> directing these questions to you.
>
> Is there some reason for not accounting for the 4 header bytes in the
> allocation length value stored in the CDB? Or is this simply a bug?
Um, we do.
unsigned char *scsi_get_vpd_page(struct scsi_device *sdev, u8 page)
unsigned char *buf = kmalloc(259, GFP_KERNEL);
result = scsi_vpd_inquiry(sdev, buf, 0, 255);
for (i = 0; i < buf[3]; i++)
if (buf[i + 4] == page)
goto found;
buf = kmalloc(len + 4, GFP_KERNEL);
result = scsi_vpd_inquiry(sdev, buf, page, len);
Now ... we do seem to be passing the len instead of len + 4 to the
device as the buffer size, so there does appear to be a minor bug here,
but it's not as horrific as you make it out to be.
> Were you aware that SCSI-2 defines the allocation length to be a single
> byte? cmd[3] is specified as "Reserved" in the spec. Hence the value
> of "len" should be capped at 255 if sdev->scsi_level <= SCSI_2, right?
and 'Reserved' in SCSI-2 means:
"A reserved bit, field, or byte shall be set to zero, or in accordance
with a future extension to this standard." (7.1.1)
> Why does scsi_get_vpd_page() retrieve page 0 first, rather than
> directly asking for the page in question? Is this some sort of
> play-it-safe approach, to avoid sending devices commands they may not
> support?
I think we had an example of a device which crashed when asked for pages
that it didn't support.
> Have you considered that plenty of low-budget USB mass-storage devices
> don't implement VPD properly? I've got a flash drive right here which
I've noticed you whining about it, yes.
> totally ignores the "page" byte in the INQUIRY command; it always
> responds with the normal INQUIRY data. Thus expecting the response
I don't think you mean the 'page' byte. I think you mean the 'EVPD'
bit.
> data always to be accurate may not be a good idea. I'm considering
> adding a "restrict_to_MS_usb" flag to the host template, to indicate
> that commands shouldn't be sent unless some version of Windows uses
> them when talking to USB devices -- do you think that could work?
Not really my area of expertise.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
