linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH IB/core 2/2] IB/cm: Send authentic pkey in REQ msg and check eligibility of the pkeys

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180516180115.GF25661@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 12:01:15 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Don Hiatt <don.hiatt@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        OFED mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal@....mellanox.co.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH IB/core 2/2] IB/cm: Send authentic pkey in REQ msg and
 check eligibility of the pkeys

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:46:10PM +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote:

>    OK. Lets take one example. The pkey table contains 0xFFFF, 0x8001,
>    0x0001.
> 
>    The wce.pkey_index is 1 (i.e., pointing to 0x8001). Now, tell me, was
>    BTH.PKey 0x8001 (matches 0x8001) or was it 0x0001 (also matching
>    0x8001) ?

As far as the Linux core is concerned, it must have been 0x8001,
because the only way the pkey_index feature works properly is if
exact-match takes precedence over in-exact match.

Jason