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-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
