linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lightnvm: add generic ocssd detection

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:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:35:06 +0200
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Matias Bjørling <matias@...xlabs.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lightnvm: add generic ocssd detection


> [adding linux-nvme to Cc as the patch changes the nvme driver, despite
> the subject line]
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 08:16:04PM +0100, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>> On 02/25/2017 07:21 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 06:16:48PM +0100, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>>> More implementations of OCSSDs are becoming available. Adding each using
>>>> pci ids are becoming a hassle. Instead, use a 16 byte string in the
>>>> vendor-specific area of the identification command to identify an
>>>> Open-Channel SSD.
>>>>
>>>> The large string should make the collision probability with other
>>>> vendor-specific strings to be near nil.
>>>
>>> No way in hell.  vs is vendor specific and we absolutely can't overload
>>> it with any sort of meaning.  Get OCSSD support properly standardized and
>>> add a class code for it.  Until then it's individual PCI IDs.
>>>
>>
>> You are right, that is the right way to go, and we are working on it. In the
>> meantime, there are a couple of reasons I want to do a pragmatic solution:
>
> Reasonable reaosons, but that's just not how standard interfaces work.
> Either you standardize the behaviour and have a standardized trigger
> for it, or it is vendor specific and needs to be keyed off a specific
> vendor/device identification.

I agree, I don't see how we're allowed to use vs for that.