Message-ID: <525C0B50.5050601@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:18:40 +0800
From: Vaughan Cao <vaughan.cao@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Steffen Maier <maier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: JBottomley@parallels.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krishna Gudipati <kgudipat@Brocade.com>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: special sense code asc,ascq=04h,0Ch abort scsi scan
 in the middle
References: <525AD704.6040705@oracle.com> <525BD1EA.6000701@suse.de> <525BE8C1.5090606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <525BEF2B.2030907@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <525BEF2B.2030907@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 8359
Lines: 177


On 2013年10月14日 21:18, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 02:51 PM, Steffen Maier wrote:
>> Hi Hannes,
>>
>> On 10/14/2013 01:13 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2013 07:23 PM, Vaughan Cao wrote:
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
>>>> special sense code asc,ascq=04h,0Ch abort scsi scan in the middle
>>>>
>>>> [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
>>>> For instance, storage represents 8 iscsi LUNs, however the LUN No.7
>>>> is not well configured or has something wrong.
>>>> Then messages received:
>>>> kernel: scsi 5:0:0:0: Unexpected response from lun 7 while scanning, scan aborted
>>>> Which will make LUN No.8 unavailable.
>>>> It's confirmed that Windows and Solaris systems will continue the
>>>> scan and make LUN No.1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8 available.
>>>>
>>>> Log snippet is as below:
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: scsi scan: INQUIRY pass 1 length 36
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: Send: 0xffff8801e9bd4280
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: CDB: Inquiry: 12 00 00 00 24 00
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: buffer = 0xffff8801f71fc180, bufflen = 36, queuecommand 0xffffffffa00b99e7
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: leaving scsi_dispatch_cmnd()
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: Done: 0xffff8801e9bd4280 SUCCESS
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: CDB: Inquiry: 12 00 00 00 24 00
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: Sense Key : Not Ready [current]
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: Add. Sense: Logical unit not accessible, target port in unavailable state
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:7: scsi host busy 1 failed 0
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: 0 sectors total, 36 bytes done.
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi scan: INQUIRY failed with code 0x8000002
>>>> Aug 24 00:32:49 vmhodtest019 kernel: scsi 5:0:0:0: Unexpected response from lun 7 while scanning, scan aborted
>>>>
>>>> According to scsi_report_lun_scan(), I found:
>>>> Linux use an inquiry command to probe a lun according to the result
>>>> of report_lun command.
>>>> It assumes every probe cmd will get a legal result. Otherwise, it
>>>> regards the whole peripheral not exist or dead.
>>>> If the return of inquiry passes its legal checking and indicates
>>>> 'LUN not present', it won't break but also continue with the scan
>>>> process.
>>>> In the log, inquiry to LUN7 return a sense - asc,ascq=04h,0Ch
>>>> (Logical unit not accessible, target port in unavailable state).
>>>> And this is ignored, so scsi_probe_lun() returns -EIO and the scan
>>>> process is aborted.
>>>>
>>>> I have two questions:
>>>> 1. Is it correct for hardware to return a sense 04h,0Ch to inquiry
>>>> again, even after presenting this lun in responce to REPORT_LUN
>>>> command?
>>> Yes, this is correct. 'REPORT LUNS' is supported in 'Unavailable' state.
>>>
>>>> 2. Since windows and solaris can continue scan, is it reasonable for
>>>> linux to do the same, even for a fault-tolerance purpose?
>>>>
>>> Hmm. Yes, and no.
>>>
>>> _Actually_ this is an issue with the target, as it looks as if it
>>> will return the above sense code while sending an 'INQUIRY' to the
>>> device.
>>> SPC explicitely states that the INQUIRY command should _not_ fail
>>> for unavailable devices.
>>> But yeah, we probably should work around this issues.
>>> Nevertheless, please raise this issue with your array vendor.
>>>
>>> Please try the attached patch.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Hannes
>>>
>> In LLDDs that do their own initiator based LUN masking (because the midlayer does not have this
>> functionality to enable hardware virtualization without NPIV, or
> to work around suboptimal LUN
>> masking on the target), they are likely to return -ENXIO from
> slave_alloc(), making scsi_alloc_sdev()
>> return NULL, being converted to SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE by
> scsi_probe_and_add_lun() and thus going
>> through the same code path above.
>>
> Ah. Hmm. Yes, they would.
>
> However, I personally would question this approach, as SPC states that
>
>> The REPORT LUNS command (see table 284) requests the device
>> server to return the peripheral device logical unit inventory
>> accessible to the I_T nexus.
> So by plain reading this would meant that you either should modify
> 'REPORT LUNS' to not show the masked LUNs,
I have the same question. If you don't want us use them, why still you 
present them in response to REPORT_LUN?
Since you report it in REPORT_LUN, I suppose the target server at least 
hold some information of this lun, so it shouldn't give an error when I 
check it? It should give me something to suggest that lun does exist, 
though it's not allowed to deal more with it at this time.
Or 'accessible' doesn't mean accessible at this time, but we have rights 
to address this LUN in this session? Whether it's online or not depends 
on the result of INQUIRY and TEST_UNIT_READY?

>   or set the pqual field to
> '0x10' or '0x11' for those LUNs.
Do you mean 001b?
After read the spc4r36g again, I'm confused on the difference between 
pqual=000b and 001b.
It seems 000b don't guarantee a lun is connected while 001b indicates a 
lun is surely not connected?
Anyone will explain these two questions a bit clearer?

###snippet form spc4
In response to an INQUIRY command received by an incorrect logical unit, 
the SCSI target device shall return
the INQUIRY data with the peripheral qualifier set to the value defined 
in 6.6.2. The INQUIRY command shall
return CHECK CONDITION status only if the device server is unable to 
return the requested INQUIRY data.

Table 175 — PERIPHERAL QUALIFIER field
Qualifier Description
000b A peripheral device having the specified peripheral device type is 
connected to this
logical unit. *If the device server is unable to determine whether or 
not a peripheral
device is connected, it also shall use this peripheral qualifier. This 
peripheral qualifier
does not mean that the peripheral device connected to the logical unit 
is ready for
access.*
001b A peripheral device having the specified peripheral device type is 
not connected to this
logical unit. However, the device server is capable of supporting the 
specified periph-
eral device type on this logical unit. (spc4r36g)
>> E.g. zfcp does return -ENXIO if the particular LUN was not made known to the unit whitelist
>> (via zfcp sysfs attribute unit_add).
>> If we attach LUN 0 (via unit_add) and trigger a target scan with SCAN_WILD_CARD for the scsi
>> lun (e.g. on remote port recovery), we see exactly above error message for the first LUN in
>> the response of report lun which is not explicitly attached to zfcp.
>> IIRC, other LLDDs such as bfa also do similar stuff [http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134489842105383&w=2].
>>
>> For those cases, I think it makes sense to abort scsi_report_lun_scan().
>> Otherwise we would force the LLDD to return -ENXIO for every single LUN reported by report lun but not
>> explicitly added to the LLDD LUN whitelist; and this would likely *flood kernel messages*.
To Steffen,
It acts like scsi_sequential_lun_scan().
* Generally, scan from LUN 1 (LUN 0 is assumed to already have been
* scanned) to some maximum lun until a LUN is found with no device
* attached.
But is there case where a lun in the middle is indeed broken, but others 
following are fine, which worths a tolerate?
Never happen?


Vaughan
>> Maybe Vaughan's case needs to be distinguished in a patch.
>>
> Well, as mentioned initially, the real issue is that the target
> aborts an INQUIRY while being in 'Unavailable'. Which, according to
> SPC-3 (or later), is a violation of the spec.
>
> So we _could_ just tell them to go away, but admittedly that's bad
> style. Which means we'll have to implement a workaround; the above
> was just a simple way of implementing it. If that's not working of
> course we'll have to do something else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/