Commit 773c7220 authored by Eric Farman's avatar Eric Farman Committed by Martin K. Petersen

scsi: virtio_scsi: Reject commands when virtqueue is broken

In the case of a graceful set of detaches, where the virtio-scsi-ccw
disk is removed from the guest prior to the controller, the guest
behaves quite normally.  Specifically, the detach gets us into
sd_sync_cache to issue a Synchronize Cache(10) command, which
immediately fails (and is retried a couple of times) because the device
has been removed.  Later, the removal of the controller sees two CRWs
presented, but there's no further indication of the removal from the
guest viewpoint.

 [   17.217458] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
 [   17.219257] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronize Cache(10) failed: Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK
 [   21.449400] crw_info : CRW reports slct=0, oflw=0, chn=1, rsc=3, anc=0, erc=4, rsid=2
 [   21.449406] crw_info : CRW reports slct=0, oflw=0, chn=0, rsc=3, anc=0, erc=4, rsid=0

However, on s390, the SCSI disks can be removed "by surprise" when an
entire controller (host) is removed and all associated disks are removed
via the loop in scsi_forget_host.  The same call to sd_sync_cache is
made, but because the controller has already been removed, the
Synchronize Cache(10) command is neither issued (and then failed) nor
rejected.

That the I/O isn't returned means the guest cannot have other devices
added nor removed, and other tasks (such as shutdown or reboot) issued
by the guest will not complete either.  The virtio ring has already been
marked as broken (via virtio_break_device in virtio_ccw_remove), but we
still attempt to queue the command only to have it remain there.  The
calling sequence provides a bit of distinction for us:

  virtscsi_queuecommand()
   -> virtscsi_kick_cmd()
    -> virtscsi_add_cmd()
     -> virtqueue_add_sgs()
      -> virtqueue_add()
         if success
           return 0
         elseif vq->broken or vring_mapping_error()
           return -EIO
         else
           return -ENOSPC

A return of ENOSPC is generally a temporary condition, so returning
"host busy" from virtscsi_queuecommand makes sense here, to have it
redriven in a moment or two.  But the EIO return code is more of a
permanent error and so it would be wise to return the I/O itself and
allow the calling thread to finish gracefully.  The result is these four
kernel messages in the guest (the fourth one does not occur prior to
this patch):

 [   22.921562] crw_info : CRW reports slct=0, oflw=0, chn=1, rsc=3, anc=0, erc=4, rsid=2
 [   22.921580] crw_info : CRW reports slct=0, oflw=0, chn=0, rsc=3, anc=0, erc=4, rsid=0
 [   22.921978] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
 [   22.921993] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronize Cache(10) failed: Result: hostbyte=DID_BAD_TARGET driverbyte=DRIVER_OK

I opted to fill in the same response data that is returned from the more
graceful device detach, where the disk device is removed prior to the
controller device.
Signed-off-by: default avatarEric Farman <farman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarFam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMartin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
parent ffb58456
......@@ -534,7 +534,9 @@ static int virtscsi_queuecommand(struct virtio_scsi *vscsi,
{
struct Scsi_Host *shost = virtio_scsi_host(vscsi->vdev);
struct virtio_scsi_cmd *cmd = scsi_cmd_priv(sc);
unsigned long flags;
int req_size;
int ret;
BUG_ON(scsi_sg_count(sc) > shost->sg_tablesize);
......@@ -562,8 +564,15 @@ static int virtscsi_queuecommand(struct virtio_scsi *vscsi,
req_size = sizeof(cmd->req.cmd);
}
if (virtscsi_kick_cmd(req_vq, cmd, req_size, sizeof(cmd->resp.cmd)) != 0)
ret = virtscsi_kick_cmd(req_vq, cmd, req_size, sizeof(cmd->resp.cmd));
if (ret == -EIO) {
cmd->resp.cmd.response = VIRTIO_SCSI_S_BAD_TARGET;
spin_lock_irqsave(&req_vq->vq_lock, flags);
virtscsi_complete_cmd(vscsi, cmd);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&req_vq->vq_lock, flags);
} else if (ret != 0) {
return SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY;
}
return 0;
}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment