Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:54128 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752755AbeEGURl (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2018 16:17:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 16:17:40 -0400 From: Scott Mayhew To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: jlayton@kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: make nfsd4_scsi_identify_device retry with a larger buffer Message-ID: <20180507201740.4m6rff36bjuuv55t@tonberry.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20180507130131.7221-1-smayhew@redhat.com> <20180507184520.GF4749@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180507184520.GF4749@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 07 May 2018, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:01:31AM -0400, Scott Mayhew wrote: > > nfsd4_scsi_identify_device() performs a single IDENTIFY command for the > > device identification VPD page using a small buffer. If the reply is > > too large to fit in this buffer then the GETDEVICEINFO reply will not > > contain any info for the SCSI volume aside from the registration key. > > This can happen for example if the device has descriptors using long > > SCSI name strings. > > > > When the initial reply from the device indicates a larger buffer is > > needed, retry once using the page length from that reply. > > Looks good, but how did you choose 65532 as the maximum? Does the scsi > layer give us any maximum? So I wasn't quite sure about that. The allocation length field for an INQUIRY command is two bytes. There are various fields that the SPC-3 doc says have to be a multiple of 4, but I couldn't find anything that says whether that applies to the allocation length. Since the initial value 252 is a muliple of 4, I figured it wouldn't hurt anything to have the maximum be a multiple of 4 too. OTOH if you look at scsi_get_vpd_buf() in drivers/scsi/scsi.c, the initial buffer size is SCSI_VPD_PG_LEN, which is 255. -Scott > > Also, I don't know why this is bothering me, but: I'd prefer "buflen" to > "bufflen". > > --b. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Mayhew > > --- > > fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c b/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c > > index 70b8bf7..0cd9249 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c > > @@ -216,13 +216,14 @@ static int nfsd4_scsi_identify_device(struct block_device *bdev, > > struct request_queue *q = bdev->bd_disk->queue; > > struct request *rq; > > struct scsi_request *req; > > - size_t bufflen = 252, len, id_len; > > + size_t bufflen = 252, maxlen = 65532, len, id_len; > > u8 *buf, *d, type, assoc; > > - int error; > > + int retries = 1, error; > > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!blk_queue_scsi_passthrough(q))) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > +again: > > buf = kzalloc(bufflen, GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!buf) > > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -255,9 +256,16 @@ static int nfsd4_scsi_identify_device(struct block_device *bdev, > > > > len = (buf[2] << 8) + buf[3] + 4; > > if (len > bufflen) { > > - pr_err("pNFS: INQUIRY 0x83 response invalid (len = %zd)\n", > > - len); > > - goto out_put_request; > > + if (len < maxlen && retries--) { > > + blk_put_request(rq); > > + kfree(buf); > > + bufflen = len; > > + goto again; > > + } else { > > + pr_err("pNFS: INQUIRY 0x83 response invalid (len = %zd)\n", > > + len); > > + goto out_put_request; > > + } > > } > > > > d = buf + 4; > > -- > > 2.9.5