From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:02:19 -0500
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:36 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Andrew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:27 -0700 > > > > > David, do you see any other problems with scsi_send_eh_cmnd? > > > > > > I've switched back to 2.6.18 which seems to not oops > > > and am happy to try patches. > > > > Does 2.6.20 with my patch OOPS too? Does reverting my patch > > make the oops go away? > > > > If reverting my patch makes the OOPS go away, we need to > > verify if page_address() is returning crap for some reason > > or the length is wrong. > > Assuming this does turn out to be the problem, we should just junk the > page allocation ... it's completely unnecessary; when the slab allocated > commands were done, we made sure the actual sense_buffer is at the > correct location, so this should be the final fix: This won't work I believe. There are cases that use smaller sense buffers than the minimum specified by the SCSI layer. One example is that do_sr_ioctl() stuff when the cgc passed in has a sense buffer. That will only be as large as a "struct request_sense". I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons why we cons up a local sense buffer in this EH code. So we could walk past the end of that and corrupt memory with your patch. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
