Re: [PATCH 2.6.15-rc6] block: Make CDROMEJECT more robust

[Ben Collins]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 20:35 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19 2005, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Reference: https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/5049
> > 
> > The eject command was failing for a large group of users for removable
> > devices. The "eject -r" command, which uses the CDROMEJECT ioctl would not
> > work, however "eject -s", which uses SG_IO did work, but required root access.
> > 
> > Since SG_IO was using the same mechanism as CDROMEJECT, there should be no
> > difference. The main reason for getting the CDROMEJECT ioctl working was
> > because it didn't need root privileges like the SG_IO commands did.
> > 
> > One bug was noticed, and that is CDROMEJECT was setting the blk request to a
> > WRITE operation, when in fact it wasn't. The block layer did not like getting
> > WRITE requests when data_len==0 and data==NULL.
> 
> False, it can't be a write request if there's no data attached. Write is
> simply used there because read requests are usually more precious.

Did you mean "can be a write request"? If not, then you just repeated
what I said.

> > This patch fixes the WRITE vs READ issue, and also sends the extra two
> > commands. Anyone with an iPod connected via USB (not sure about firewire)
> > should be able to reproduce this issue, and verify the patch.
> 
> The bug was in the SCSI layer, and James already has the fix integrated
> for that. It really should make 2.6.15, James are you sending it upwards
> for that?

Can you point me to this fix? Also, does the "fix" fix the case for IDE
CDROM's too?

> >  		case CDROMEJECT:
> > -			rq = blk_get_request(q, WRITE, __GFP_WAIT);
> > -			rq->flags |= REQ_BLOCK_PC;
> > -			rq->data = NULL;
> > -			rq->data_len = 0;
> > -			rq->timeout = BLK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
> > -			memset(rq->cmd, 0, sizeof(rq->cmd));
> > -			rq->cmd[0] = GPCMD_START_STOP_UNIT;
> > -			rq->cmd[4] = 0x02 + (close != 0);
> > -			rq->cmd_len = 6;
> > -			err = blk_execute_rq(q, bd_disk, rq, 0);
> > -			blk_put_request(rq);
> > +			err = 0;
> > +
> > +			err |= blk_send_allow_medium_removal(q, bd_disk);
> > +			err |= blk_send_start_stop(q, bd_disk, 0x01);
> > +			err |= blk_send_start_stop(q, bd_disk, 0x02);
> 
> Do this in the eject tool, if it's required for some devices.

It already is in eject tool, but as described, that requires root
access. Not something I want to force a user to do in order to eject
their CDROM/iPod/USBStick in gnome. What exactly is wrong with the
commands? If they are harmless for devices that don't need it, and fix a
huge number of problems (did you see the Cc list on the bug report?) for
users with affected devices, then what's the harm?

-- 
   Ben Collins <ben.collins@xxxxxxxxxx>
   Developer
   Ubuntu Linux

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/