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  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:   Sun, 2 Apr 2017 22:26:08 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <>
To:     Sinan Kaya <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>, Sagi Grimberg <>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
        Jens Axboe <>,
        Steve Wise <>,
        Stephen Bates <>,
        Max Gurtovoy <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Keith Busch <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,,,,,,,
        Alex Williamson <>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] Introduce Peer-to-Peer memory (p2pmem) device

On 02/04/17 03:03 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Push the decision all the way to the user. Let them decide whether they
> want this feature to work on a root port connected port or under the
> switch.

Yes, I prefer this too. If other folks agree with that I'd be very happy
to go back to user chooses. I think Sagi was the most vocal proponent
for kernel chooses at LSF so hopefully he will read this thread and
offer some opinion.

> I thought the issue was feature didn't work at all with some root ports
> or there was some kind of memory corruption issue that you were trying to
> avoid with the existing systems.

I *think* there are some much older root ports where P2P TLPs don't even
get through. But it doesn't really change the situation: in the nvmet
case, the user would enable p2pmem and then be unable to connect and
thus choose to disable it going forward. Not a big difference from the
user seeing bad performance and not choosing to enable it.

> I think you should get rid of all pci searching business in your code.

Yes, my original proposal was when you configure the nvme target you
chose the specific p2pmem device to use. That code had no tie ins to PCI
code and could, in theory, work generically with any device and bus.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists