From: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Linux SCSI Mailinglist <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] scsi: fc: check for rport presence in fc_block_scsi_eh
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:09:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65ae4ea5-8892-38fa-4477-36c766d8fc13@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170926065809.7980-1-jthumshirn@suse.de>
On 09/26/2017 08:58 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Coverity-scan recently found a possible NULL pointer dereference in
> fc_block_scsi_eh() as starget_to_rport() either returns the rport for
> the startget or NULL.
>
> While it is rather unlikely to have fc_block_scsi_eh() called without
> an rport associated it's a good idea to catch potential misuses of the
> API gracefully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
> ---
>
> Changes since v1:
> - s/WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE/ (Bart)
>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> index ba9d70f8a6a1..38abff7b5dbc 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> @@ -3328,6 +3328,9 @@ int fc_block_scsi_eh(struct scsi_cmnd *cmnd)
> {
> struct fc_rport *rport = starget_to_rport(scsi_target(cmnd->device));
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!rport))
> + return 0;
Good idea.
However, return 0 or FAST_IO_FAIL?
I mean the callchains to this function (and of fc_block_rport()) react
differently depending on the return value.
Returning 0 means that the rport left the blocked state, i.e. is usable
for traffic again.
If there is no rport at all, I suppose one cannot use it for traffic.
If there is any I/O pending on this scope and we return 0, scsi_eh
escalates; and if this happens for a host_reset we end up with offlined
scsi_devices.
I wonder if returning FAST_IO_FAIL would be more appropriate here in
this case, in order to have scsi_eh let the pending I/O bubble up for a
timely path failover?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Steffen Maier
Linux on z Systems Development
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-26 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-26 6:58 Johannes Thumshirn
2017-09-26 7:26 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-09-26 9:09 ` Steffen Maier [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=65ae4ea5-8892-38fa-4477-36c766d8fc13@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®