From: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
CC: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
---
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;
}
--
1.8.1.4
On 06/06/2013 10:18 AM, Jan Vesely wrote:
> From: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> CC: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
[email protected] +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imend?rffer, HRB 16746 (AG N?rnberg)
On Thu 06 Jun 2013 10:42:16 CEST, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 10:18 AM, Jan Vesely wrote:
>> From: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
>>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> CC: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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
thanks for your response.
I'm concerned with iSCSI. it uses SAM2 LUN addressing scheme,
and since I found that comment I did not investigate further.
I'll wait for your lun64 patches,
thanks again
--
Jan Vesely <[email protected]>