From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 10 03:10:00 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF77EF1 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5C921D09 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0A3A06Y022166 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:10:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s0A3A04F022165; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:10:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:10:00 GMT Resent-Message-Id: <201401100310.s0A3A04F022165@freefall.freebsd.org> Resent-From: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org (GNATS Filer) Resent-To: freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org Resent-Reply-To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, Alex Goncharov Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64DF4C24 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldred.freebsd.org (oldred.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F95D1CC7 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldred.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.6]) by oldred.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0A32atJ061225 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:02:36 GMT (envelope-from nobody@oldred.freebsd.org) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by oldred.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id s0A32a2L061224; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:02:36 GMT (envelope-from nobody) Message-Id: <201401100302.s0A32a2L061224@oldred.freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:02:36 GMT From: Alex Goncharov To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org X-Send-Pr-Version: www-3.1 Subject: usb/185628: usbd_req_re_enumerate set address failed USB_ERR_STALLED for Seagate USB drives between r259425 and r260321 X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 03:10:01 -0000 >Number: 185628 >Category: usb >Synopsis: usbd_req_re_enumerate set address failed USB_ERR_STALLED for Seagate USB drives between r259425 and r260321 >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-usb >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Fri Jan 10 03:10:00 UTC 2014 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Alex Goncharov >Release: 9.2-STABLE, built from svn source, r260321 >Organization: >Environment: FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0 r260321 Sun Jan 5 13:06:01 EST 2014 >Description: This is an extremely reproducible and very upsetting new problem. I have been using two identical Seagate Expansion 0219 drives for about a year, attaching them to three FreeBSD systems, all of which I update, building from the source, about every two-three weeks. No problem, good drives -- till the last Sunday. This past Sunday, I update two systems from r259425 to r260321, and suddenly both of them now show these 'dmesg'es on connecting either of the two drives: ------------------------------------------------------------ usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored) usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed, USB_ERR_STALLED usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored) usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed, USB_ERR_STALLED usb_alloc_device: Failure selecting configuration index 0:USB_ERR_STALLED, port 3, addr 2 (ignored) ugen5.2: at usbus5 ugen5.2: at usbus5 (disconnected) ------------------------------------------------------------ Fortunately, I didn't upgrade my third system and its still at FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0 r259425: Sun Dec 15 16:52:59 EST 2013 I've been using one of these two Seagate drives on it without a single problem (didn't have to try the second one.) So between r259425 and r26032 something significant was changed in the code, but I couldn't spot it, having looked into lib/libusb etc/devd code differences. Other points of reference for the current situation: 1. Several other USB drives I have -- Buffalo, Toshiba, Sony -- function without this problem. 2. After I discovered this problem in r260321, I copied the full (close to 1TB) contents of my primary Seagate drive to two 1T Sony drives, using my Linux system. Not a single problem. 3. When I tried to copy (in r260321 only) the contents of my 500G Buffalo drives to the same Sony drive, my system went down twice, because the device written to, 'da0' was being lost while being written to; I first used gjournal and then the plain 'news -U /dev/da0' to create a file system -- the same result: the computer crashed after a few tens of GBs had been copied to the Sony. (A very poor comparison to my Linux experience, alas.) 4. To my astonishment, I could not boot into the old kernel boot /boot/kernel.old/kernel now, to experiment with the r259425 kernel. On both system where I tried that, the boot process was interrupted on some devd (devfs) problems. I've never had see such behavior before (but I haven't been booting with kernel.old for 2+ years.) Needless to say, this is a big disappointment, especially considering the wonderful behavior of both Seagate and Sony drives when used on a Linux machines -- with a wider range or the file systems I used. I'll try 10.0-STABLE in a couple of weeks, but for now the non-upgraded 9.2-STABLE #0 r259425 machine will stay non-upgraded (and I am thinking, again, if moving to Linux more resolutely than I have done so far, would make sense now.) Thank you, -- Alex >How-To-Repeat: >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: