Re: [PATCH 3/3] target: Add (obsolete) checking for PMI/LBA fields in READ CAPACITY(10)

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

 



On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 17:36 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> From: Roland Dreier <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The SBC-2 specification of READ CAPACITY(10) has PMI and LOGICAL BLOCK
> ADDRESS fields in the CDB; in SBC-3 these fields are simply listed as
> obsolete.  However, SBC-2 also has the language
> 
>     If the PMI bit is set to zero and the LOGICAL BLOCK ADDRESS field
>     is not set to zero, the device server shall terminate the command
>     with CHECK CONDITION status with the sense key set to ILLEGAL
>     REQUEST and the additional sense code set to INVALID FIELD IN CDB.
> 
> and in fact at least the Windows SCSI compliance test checks this
> behavior.  Since no one following SBC-3 is going to set these fields,
> we might as well include the check from SBC-2 and pass this test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Also applied to for-next.

Thanks Roland!

--nab

>  drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
> index ee0cb9d..8a46277 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
> @@ -38,11 +38,27 @@ static sense_reason_t
>  sbc_emulate_readcapacity(struct se_cmd *cmd)
>  {
>  	struct se_device *dev = cmd->se_dev;
> +	unsigned char *cdb = cmd->t_task_cdb;
>  	unsigned long long blocks_long = dev->transport->get_blocks(dev);
>  	unsigned char *rbuf;
>  	unsigned char buf[8];
>  	u32 blocks;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * SBC-2 says:
> +	 *   If the PMI bit is set to zero and the LOGICAL BLOCK
> +	 *   ADDRESS field is not set to zero, the device server shall
> +	 *   terminate the command with CHECK CONDITION status with
> +	 *   the sense key set to ILLEGAL REQUEST and the additional
> +	 *   sense code set to INVALID FIELD IN CDB.
> +	 *
> +	 * In SBC-3, these fields are obsolete, but some SCSI
> +	 * compliance tests actually check this, so we might as well
> +	 * follow SBC-2.
> +	 */
> +	if (!(cdb[8] & 1) && !!(cdb[2] | cdb[3] | cdb[4] | cdb[5]))
> +		return TCM_INVALID_CDB_FIELD;
> +
>  	if (blocks_long >= 0x00000000ffffffff)
>  		blocks = 0xffffffff;
>  	else


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux