[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: inquiry in scsi_scan.c
Matthew Dharm wrote:
> Actually, 5 isn't minimal... it's sub-minimal. That's an error in the
> INQUIRY data. The minimum (by spec) is 36 bytes.
> There should probably be a sanity check to never ask for INQUIRY less than
> 36 bytes. I thought there used to be such a thing....

The scan code does a 36 byte INQUIRY first and then does
a second INQUIRY if the response indicates more (than 36
bytes) is available. In this case _less_ than 36 bytes
was supplied. So either the scsi scan code or usb-storage **
needs to make some pro forma vendor, model and rev strings.

We found previously that doing a longer INQUIRY (254
or 255 bytes) locked up some [arguably broken] usb devices.
Hence we switched to the twin INQUIRY strategy. Evidentally
FreeBSD does the same thing.

Throwing away such broken devices is not an option I guess.
What does that device look like under Windows?

** Assuming the usb device in question is using usb-storage,
shouldn't it make sure at least 36 (valid) bytes of response
data is supplied by an INQUIRY? Andrew Morton had to do this
(perhaps at a lower level in the usb stack) to make some device
he had play with the scsi subsystem.

Doug Gilbert

> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:21:11AM +0100, wrote:
>>Got a new USB device and noticed some scsi silliness while playing with it.
>>A bug in scsi_scan.c is
>> sdev->inquiry = kmalloc(sdev->inquiry_len, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> memcpy(sdev->inquiry, inq_result, sdev->inquiry_len);
>> sdev->vendor = (char *) (sdev->inquiry + 8);
>> sdev->model = (char *) (sdev->inquiry + 16);
>> sdev->rev = (char *) (sdev->inquiry + 32);
>>since it happens that inquiry_len is short (in my case it is 5)
>>and the vendor/model/rev pointers are wild.
>>Catting /proc/scsi/scsi now yields random garbage.
>>I made a patch but hesitated between a small patch and a larger one.
>>Why do we have this malloced inquiry field? As far as I can see
>>nobody uses it. And the comment in scsi_add_lun() advises us
>>not to save the inquiry, precisely what we did until recently.
>>So, should this change from 2.5.11 be reverted?
>>[My present scsi_scan.c differes quite a lot from a stock one.
>>Already fixed the scsi_check_id_size() some time ago.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.080 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site