netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] net/smc:introduce 1RTT to SMC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:59:37 +0200
From:   Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net/smc:introduce 1RTT to SMC



On 16.06.22 15:49, D. Wythe wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/6/1 下午2:33, D. Wythe wrote:
>>
>> 在 2022/5/25 下午9:42, Alexandra Winter 写道:
>>
>>> We need to carefully evaluate them and make sure everything is compatible
>>> with the existing implementations of SMC-D and SMC-R v1 and v2. In the
>>> typical s390 environment ROCE LAG is propably not good enough, as the card
>>> is still a single point of failure. So your ideas need to be compatible
>>> with link redundancy. We also need to consider that the extension of the
>>> protocol does not block other desirable extensions.
>>>
>>> Your prototype is very helpful for the understanding. Before submitting any
>>> code patches to net-next, we should agree on the details of the protocol
>>> extension. Maybe you could formulate your proposal in plain text, so we can
>>> discuss it here?
>>>
>>> We also need to inform you that several public holidays are upcoming in the
>>> next weeks and several of our team will be out for summer vacation, so please
>>> allow for longer response times.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Alexandra Winter
>>>
>>
>> Hi alls,
>>
>> In order to achieve signle-link compatibility, we must
>> complete at least once negotiation. We wish to provide
>> higher scalability while meeting this feature. There are
>> few ways to reach this.
>>
>> 1. Use the available reserved bits. According to
>> the SMC v2 protocol, there are at least 28 reserved octets
>> in PROPOSAL MESSAGE and at least 10 reserved octets in
>> ACCEPT MESSAGE are available. We can define an area in which
>> as a feature area, works like bitmap. Considering the subsequent scalability, we MAY use at least 2 reserved ctets, which can support negotiation of at least 16 features.
>>
>> 2. Unify all the areas named extension in current
>> SMC v2 protocol spec without reinterpreting any existing field
>> and field offset changes, including 'PROPOSAL V1 IP Subnet Extension',
>> 'PROPOSAL V2 Extension', 'PROPOSAL SMC-DV2 EXTENSION' .etc. And provides
>> the ability to grow dynamically as needs expand. This scheme will use
>> at least 10 reserved octets in the PROPOSAL MESSAGE and at least 4 reserved octets in ACCEPT MESSAGE and CONFIRM MESSAGE. Fortunately, we only need to use reserved fields, and the current reserved fields are sufficient. And then we can easily add a new extension named SIGNLE LINK. Limited by space, the details will be elaborated after the scheme is finalized.
>>
[...]
>>
>>
>> Look forward to your advice and comments.
>>
>> Thanks.
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On the basis of previous，If we can put the application data over the PROPOSAL message,
> we can achieve SMC 0-RTT. Its process should be similar to the following:
> 
[...]

Thank you D. Wythe for the detailed proposal, I have forwarded it to the protocol owner
and we are currently reviewing it. 
We may contact you and Tony Lu directly to discuss the details, if that is ok for you.

Kind regards
Alexandra Winter