From 9625132bf590b5fb74bfe98491e2e5649575801d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Brown Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:40:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] [iscsi] Verify the correct tag in NOP-In PDUs We should be checking the target transfer tag, rather than the initiator task tag. Signed-off-by: Michael Brown --- src/net/tcp/iscsi.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/net/tcp/iscsi.c b/src/net/tcp/iscsi.c index 6ef4c896..f80186f7 100644 --- a/src/net/tcp/iscsi.c +++ b/src/net/tcp/iscsi.c @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ static int iscsi_rx_nop_in ( struct iscsi_session *iscsi, * (not the reserved 0xffffffff), the initiator MUST respond * with a NOP-Out". Since we never send unsolicited NOP-Outs, * my reading of this is that we can handle all permitted - * NOP-Ins (which must have ITT set to 0xffffffff) by simply + * NOP-Ins (which must have TTT set to 0xffffffff) by simply * ignoring them. * * There is some ambiguity in the RFC, since there are other @@ -628,9 +628,9 @@ static int iscsi_rx_nop_in ( struct iscsi_session *iscsi, * rather than just having the target drop the connection when * it times out waiting for the NOP-Out response. */ - if ( nop_in->itt != htonl ( ISCSI_TAG_RESERVED ) ) { - DBGC ( iscsi, "iSCSI %p received invalid NOP-In with ITT " - "%08x\n", iscsi, ntohl ( nop_in->itt ) ); + if ( nop_in->ttt != htonl ( ISCSI_TAG_RESERVED ) ) { + DBGC ( iscsi, "iSCSI %p received invalid NOP-In with TTT " + "%08x\n", iscsi, ntohl ( nop_in->ttt ) ); return -EPROTO_INVALID_NOP_IN; }