On 06/06/2013 10:18 AM, Jan Vesely wrote: > From: Jan Vesely <jvesely@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The comment says the function does this but it does not. > Reported luns change from weirdly high numbers (like 16640) > to something saner (256), when using flat space addressing. > > CC: James Bottomley <JBottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <jvesely@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > index 3e58b22..38dc093 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c > @@ -1244,7 +1244,7 @@ int scsilun_to_int(struct scsi_lun *scsilun) > > lun = 0; > for (i = 0; i < sizeof(lun); i += 2) > - lun = lun | (((scsilun->scsi_lun[i] << 8) | > + lun = lun | ((((scsilun->scsi_lun[i] & 0x3f) << 8) | > scsilun->scsi_lun[i + 1]) << (i * 8)); > return lun; > } > Bzzt. It's not that simple. For SCSI-3 _all_ numbers are valid, and doesn't know of any addressing scheme. It's only SPC-2 which introduced the addressing scheme. So at the very least you should be checking the scsi revision before attempting something like this. But in general doing a sequential scan past 256 is criminally dangerous. Any array / device attempting to is in most cases misconfigured or does not have the correct BLIST flag set. I know of some older Hitachi and EMC firmware which would pretend to be SCSI-2, but supporting more than 256 LUNs per host. Which, of course, it totally bonkers. I'll be posting my 64-bit LUN patchset, that should fix this issue. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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
