[Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] ps3rom: sector size should be 512 bytes

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:53 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 09:28 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:26 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 08:10 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 06:10 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > > > Greetings Geert and Co,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have a related patch that I have been using with ps3rom.c for some
> > > > > > time that fixes a bug in fs/bio.c that assumes 512 byte sectors for
> > > > > > ATAPI operations.  This bug actually exists for all non 512 byte sector
> > > > > > devices go through this code path (I found it with
> > > > > > scsi_execute_async()), but I first ran into this issue with ps3rom.c
> > > > > > because max_sectors (32) is small enough to trigger the bug assuming 512
> > > > > > byte sectors during typical ATAPI READ_10 ops with iSCSI/HD.  Because
> > > > > > typical max_sector settings for libata and USB are much higher, I have
> > > > > > never ran into this issue outside of ps3rom.c, but the bug exists
> > > > > > nevertheless..
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The current patch assumes 512 byte sectors, and adds a sector_size
> > > > > > parameter to drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:scsi_req_map_sg() to change it for
> > > > > > passed struct request.  I know that some folks talked about killing
> > > > > > scsi_execute_async() and fixing this problem elsewhere, but until then
> > > > > > please consider this patch.  Any input is also appreciated.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My first reaction is really, no; there's no way we should be doing such
> > > > > a nasty layering violation.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't care for it either, but without this patch (or something
> > > > similar) all SCSI targets that use scsi_execute_async(), for non 512
> > > > byte requests are broken.  This causes a problem when a small max_sector
> > > > is correctly used by the LLD, and trips the check in
> > > > fs/bio.c:__bio_add_page()
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (((bio->bi_size + len) >> 9) > max_sectors)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Could we rewind this discussion back to an actual problem description
> > > then, please?  Nothing in the standard path for a CD/DVD should be using
> > > scsi_execute_async(), what's the actual problem use case?
> > > 
> > 
> > The problem case is a SCSI Target Mode engine that receives a 2048 Byte
> > single sector ATAPI READ_10 request from the storage fabric, and uses
> > scsi_execute_async() (the only option >= 2.6.18) to issue said request
> > to the underlying struct scsi_device.  Because the underlying bio code
> > assumes 512 byte only sectors, the check in __bio_add_page() incorrectly
> > determines that max_sectors (max_sectors has to be low, as with 32 from
> > ps3rom.c) has been exceeded, and fails the request back up the stack.
> 
> OK, so this is a totally separate issue from the one you actually posted
> it as a patch to fix?
> 
> the queue max_sectors parameter is also counted in the block internal of
> 512 byte sectors.  If you set it to 32 that means you were only
> expecting 16k of transfers per command maximum.  If that's not right,
> then set the limit correctly.
> 
> In short, and to repeat: almost every internal size counter to block is
> in units of 512 byte sectors ... that includes capacity, maximum etc ...
> 

Ok, after reading your followup with Geert I see that this looks like a
bug in ps3rom.c assuming 2048 byte sectors to calculate .max_sectors
(which was originally set to 32 as I mentioned).  Using the setting
BOUNCE_SIZE << 9 where BOUNCE_SIZE is the request size in bytes looks
like this will solve the issue.  My misunderstanding was
that .max_sectors was allowed to be calcuated in non 512 byte sectors,
so please disregard my patch.

Geert, .max_sectors for ps3rom.c using 512 byte sectors ends up being
128, yes.?

James, could we put something in the SCSI docs stating that .max_sectors
MUST be calculated against 512 byte sectors..?

Thanks again,

--nab

> James
> 
> 
>