linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] nvme-fcloop: verify wwnn and wwpn format

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: <6c646a1e-ab40-63a1-01cb-6cc2548a3853@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:03:38 +0200
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>,
        Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "james.smart@...adcom.com" <james.smart@...adcom.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] nvme-fcloop: verify wwnn and wwpn format

On 6/4/20 8:54 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 6/3/20 11:46 PM, Dongli Zhang wrote:
>> May I get feedback for this?
>>
>> For the first time I use fcloop, I set:
>>
>> # echo "wwnn=0x3,wwpn=0x1" > /sys/class/fcloop/ctl/add_target_port
>>
>> However, I would not be able to move forward if I use "0x3" or "0x1" for nvme-fc
>> target or host further. Instead, the address and port should be
>> 0x0000000000000003 and 0x0000000000000001.
>>
>> This patch would sync the requirements of input format for nvme-fc and
>> nvme-fcloop, unless this would break existing test suite (e.g., blktest).
> If I remember correctly I don't think we have fc-loop testcases (correct
> me if I'm wrong).
> 
Well, I sent some testcases a while back (cf 'fcloop and ANA fixes').
Should I resend them?

> Not an fc expert, but having uniform format for the input make sense to
> me (unless there is an explicit reason). I'll let James have a final say.
> 

I would stick to use the full 64bit number for both wwpn and wwnn; one 
gets into too many arguments otherwise (big-endian? little-endian?).
And one could argue that '0x0000000000000001' is invalid anyway as per 
FC-FS3 a '0' in word 0 byte 0 means 'Name not present' :-)

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke            Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@...e.de                               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer