linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 8/9] nvmet-passthru: Add enable/disable helpers

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:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:33:56 -0800
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 8/9] nvmet-passthru: Add enable/disable helpers


> +	if (subsys->ver < NVME_VS(1, 2, 1)) {
> +		pr_warn("nvme controller version is too old: %d.%d.%d, advertising 1.2.1\n",
> +			(int)NVME_MAJOR(subsys->ver),
> +			(int)NVME_MINOR(subsys->ver),
> +			(int)NVME_TERTIARY(subsys->ver));
> +		subsys->ver = NVME_VS(1, 2, 1);

Umm.. is this OK? do we implement the mandatory 1.2.1 features on behalf
of the passthru device?

> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
> +	return 0;
> +
> +out_put_ctrl:
> +	nvme_put_ctrl(ctrl);
> +out_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void __nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys)
> +{
> +	if (subsys->passthru_ctrl) {
> +		xa_erase(&passthru_subsystems, subsys->passthru_ctrl->cntlid);
> +		nvme_put_ctrl(subsys->passthru_ctrl);
> +	}
> +	subsys->passthru_ctrl = NULL;
> +	subsys->ver = NVMET_DEFAULT_VS;
> +}

Isn't it strange that a subsystem changes its version in its lifetime?

> +
> +void nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&subsys->lock);
> +	__nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(subsys);
> +	mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);
> +}
> +
> +void nvmet_passthru_subsys_free(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&subsys->lock);
> +	__nvmet_passthru_ctrl_disable(subsys);
> +	kfree(subsys->passthru_ctrl_path);
> +	mutex_unlock(&subsys->lock);

Nit, any reason why the free is in the mutex?