Re: [PATCH 02/14] target: Add DIF CHECK_CONDITION ASC/ASCQ exception cases

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

 



On 1/14/2014 10:53 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 09:44 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 1/10/2014 8:53 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 12:43 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 1/8/2014 10:36 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This patch adds support for DIF related CHECK_CONDITION ASC/ASCQ
exception cases into transport_send_check_condition_and_sense().

This includes:

     LOGICAL BLOCK GUARD CHECK FAILED
     LOGICAL BLOCK APPLICATION TAG CHECK FAILED
     LOGICAL BLOCK REFERENCE TAG CHECK FAILED

that used by DIF TYPE1 and TYPE3 failure cases.

Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
    drivers/target/target_core_transport.c |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    include/target/target_core_base.h      |    3 +++
    2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
index 91953da..707ee17 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
@@ -2648,6 +2648,36 @@ transport_send_check_condition_and_sense(struct se_cmd *cmd,
    		buffer[SPC_ASC_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x1d;
    		buffer[SPC_ASCQ_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x00;
    		break;
+	case TCM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_GUARD_CHECK_FAILED:
+		/* CURRENT ERROR */
+		buffer[0] = 0x70;
+		buffer[SPC_ADD_SENSE_LEN_OFFSET] = 10;
+		/* ILLEGAL REQUEST */
+		buffer[SPC_SENSE_KEY_OFFSET] = ILLEGAL_REQUEST;
+		/* LOGICAL BLOCK GUARD CHECK FAILED */
+		buffer[SPC_ASC_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x10;
+		buffer[SPC_ASCQ_KEY_OFFSET] = 0x01;
Hey Nic,

In my iSER patches I constructed the same sense buffer (call
isert_pi_err_sense_buffer) and called isert_put_rsponse. So I should
call this routine instead correct?
Yes, it should be OK to use this for generating CHECK_CONDITION from
fabric protection failures in isert_completion_rdma_write() code after
device->unreg_rdma_mem() has been called.

--nab


Will do that.
--
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




[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