Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:16:50 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
        hongwus@codeaurora.org, ziqichen@codeaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] scsi: ufs: Update the fast abort path in
 ufshcd_abort() for PM requests
In-Reply-To: <b28d71a7-3839-2c07-2630-6196ea10951f@acm.org>
References: <1624433711-9339-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1624433711-9339-11-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <b28d71a7-3839-2c07-2630-6196ea10951f@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5ff72cfab707b571ef395d52931edd0f@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

Hi Bart,

On 2021-06-24 05:33, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 6/23/21 12:35 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>> @@ -2737,7 +2737,7 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host 
>> *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
>>  		 * err handler blocked for too long. So, just fail the scsi cmd
>>  		 * sent from PM ops, err handler can recover PM error anyways.
>>  		 */
>> -		if (hba->wlu_pm_op_in_progress) {
>> +		if (cmd->request->rq_flags & RQF_PM) {
>>  			hba->force_reset = true;
>>  			set_host_byte(cmd, DID_BAD_TARGET);
>>  			cmd->scsi_done(cmd);
> 
> I'm still concerned that the above code may trigger data corruption. I
> prefer that the above code is removed instead of being modified.

Removing the change will lead to deadlock when error handling prepare
calls pm_runtime_get_sync().

RQF_PM is only given to requests sent from power management operations,
during which the specific device/LU is suspending/resuming, meaning no
data transaction is ongoing. How can fast failing a PM request trigger
data corruption?

Thanks,

Can Guo.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.