linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands

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]

Message-ID: <20190816131606.GA26191@lst.de>
Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:16:06 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@...ray.eu>
Cc:     kbusch@...nel.org, axboe@...com, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Samuel Jones <sjones@...ray.eu>,
        Guillaume Missonnier <gmissonnier@...ray.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands

Sorry for not replying to the earlier version, and thanks for doing
this work.

I wonder if instead of using our own structure we'd just use
a full nvme SQE for the input and CQE for that output.  Even if we
reserve a few fields that means we are ready for any newly used
field (at least until the SQE/CQE sizes are expanded..).

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:47:21AM +0200, Marta Rybczynska wrote:
> It is not possible to get 64-bit results from the passthru commands,
> what prevents from getting for the Capabilities (CAP) property value.
> 
> As a result, it is not possible to implement IOL's NVMe Conformance
> test 4.3 Case 1 for Fabrics targets [1] (page 123).

Not that I'm not sure passing through fabrics commands is an all that
good idea.  But we have pending NVMe TPs that use 64-bit result
values as well, so this seems like a good idea in general.