SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: CDB/PDU inconsistencies and residual counts



    Title: CDB/PDU inconsistencies and residual counts

    I just thought of another example. As I remember (and I could be remembering things wrong), if you issue an inquiry of say 20 bytes (the CDB says so and so does the ExpectedDataTransferLength), but the target only has 14 bytes to transfer, you will get an underflow. If I'm not mistaken, I have seen this in both FC and pSCSI.

     

     

    Eddy

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dean Scoville [mailto:dean.scoville@qlogic.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:43 PM
    To: Julian Satran
    Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject: CDB/PDU inconsistencies and residual counts

     

    Julian,
    The overflow/underflow and residual count values in Data-in and
    SCSI Response PDUs are set by the target based on the expected
    transfer length for the command, but should these values be set based
    on the CDB (SCSI layer) or based on the PDU "expected data transfer length"
    field (iSCSI layer)?

    For example, suppose an initiator sends a 4 block SCSI Read command
    but for some reason thinks the block size is 1024 bytes when in actuality
    the disk has 512 byte blocks. The SCSI Command PDU would have an
    "expected data transfer length" of value of 4096 bytes, but the target would
    actually return 2048 bytes (based on the true block size). Should the target
    set the underflow bit and return a residual count (based on the iSCSI PDU),
    or should it return no underflow and no residual count (based on the SCSI CDB)?

    The question comes up because I was running some iSCSI protocol test
    scripts where the PDU "expected transfer length" and the transfer length
    in the CDB were inconsistent in one of the scripts.

    Another example would be if the "allocation length" field in the CDB for
    an Inquiry command doesn't match the "expected data transfer length" field
    in the SCSI Command PDU.

    The script was in error and should be fixed, is there a desired target
    behavior in such situations, given that the CDB fields are not typically parsed
    by the iSCSI layer, the SCSI device may know nothing about iSCSI PDUs,
    and some middle-layer may or may not know about both.

    If the initiator detects that an underflow has occurred, based solely on the
    amount of data received and the "expected data transfer field" in the iSCSI PDU,
    but the target did not report an underflow or residual count in the SCSI response,
    is the initiator allowed/expected to report an underflow to the upper layers?

    Thanks,

    Dean Scoville



Home

Last updated: Tue Aug 05 12:46:11 2003
12771 messages in chronological order