linux-kernel - Re: [[PATCH v1] 02/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Add structure for SMBD transport

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:   Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:49:42 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [[PATCH v1] 02/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Add structure for SMBD transport

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 08:32:48AM +0000, Long Li via samba-technical wrote:
> I think it is possible to separate the common code that implements the SMBDirect transport. There are some challenges to reuse the same code for both kernel and user spaces.
> 1. Kernel mode RDMA verbs are similar but different to user-mode ones.
> 2. Some RDMA features (e.g Fast Registration Work Request) are not available in user-mode.
> 3. Locking and synchronization mechanism is different
> 4. Memory management is different.
> 5. Process creation/scheduling and data sharing between processes are different, and there is no user-mode code running in interrupt/softirq.
> 
> Those needs to be abstracted through a layer, the rest of the code can be shared. I can work on this after patch set is reviewed.

NAK - code with those sort of obsfucation layer will be rejected
for kernel inclusion - don't add it.