"Ju, Seokmann" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This patch has fix for a bug in the 'megaraid_reset_handler()'.
>
> When abort failed, the driver gets reset handleer called. In the reset
> handler, driver calls 'scsi_done()' callback for same SCSI command
> packet (struct scsi_cmnd) multiple times if there are multiple SCSI
> command packet in the pend_list. More over, if there are entry in the
> pend_lsit with IOCTL packet associated, the driver returns it to wrong
> free_list so that, in turn, the driver could end up with 'NULL pointer
> dereference..' during I/O command building with incorrect resource.
>
> Also, the patch contains several minor/cosmetic changes besides this.
>
> ..
>
> @@ -2655,32 +2655,48 @@
> // Also, reset all the commands currently owned by the driver
> spin_lock_irqsave(PENDING_LIST_LOCK(adapter), flags);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(scb, tmp, &adapter->pend_list, list) {
> -
> list_del_init(&scb->list); // from pending list
>
> - con_log(CL_ANN, (KERN_WARNING
> - "megaraid: %ld:%d[%d:%d], reset from pending list\n",
> - scp->serial_number, scb->sno,
> - scb->dev_channel, scb->dev_target));
> + if (scb->sno >= MBOX_MAX_SCSI_CMDS) {
> + con_log(CL_ANN, (KERN_WARNING
> + "megaraid: IOCTL packet with %d[%d:%d] being reset\n",
> + scb->sno, scb->dev_channel, scb->dev_target));
>
> - scp->result = (DID_RESET << 16);
> - scp->scsi_done(scp);
> + scb->status = -EFAULT;
What is the significance of -EFAULT here? Seems inappropriate?
> @@ -2918,12 +2933,12 @@
> wmb();
> WRINDOOR(raid_dev, raid_dev->mbox_dma | 0x1);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < 0xFFFFF; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < 0xFFFFFF; i++) {
> if (mbox->numstatus != 0xFF) break;
> rmb();
> }
Oh my. That's an awfully long interrupts-off spin. 1.7e7 operations with
an NMI watchdog timeout of five seconds - I'm surprised it doesn't trigger.
Is that reading from a PCI register there? Or main memory?
I'm somewhat surprised that the compiler never "optimises" this into a
lockup, actually. That's what `volatile' is for.
Is it not possible to do this with an interrupt?
A `cpu_relax()' in that loop would help cool things down a bit.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
