linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 7/9] nvmet-passthru: Add passthru code to process 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: <e939dd43-9e7f-8ef0-162b-2a27f53e6e1a@grimberg.me>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:35:12 -0700
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        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 v15 7/9] nvmet-passthru: Add passthru code to process
 commands


>> Add passthru command handling capability for the NVMeOF target and
>> export passthru APIs which are used to integrate passthru
>> code with nvmet-core.
>>
>> The new file passthru.c handles passthru cmd parsing and execution.
>> In the passthru mode, we create a block layer request from the nvmet
>> request and map the data on to the block layer request.
>>
>> Admin commands and features are on a white list as there are a number
>> of each that don't make too much sense with passthrough. We use a
>> white list so that new commands can be considered before being blindly
>> passed through. In both cases, vendor specific commands are always
>> allowed.
>>
>> We also blacklist reservation IO commands as the underlying device
>> cannot differentiate between multiple hosts behind a fabric.
> 
> I'm still not so happy about having to look up the namespace and still
> wonder if we should generalize the connect_q to a passthrough_q.  But
> I guess we can do that later and then reduce some of the exports here..

That is a neat idea! should be easy to do (and we can then lose the host
xarray stuff). I don't mind having it on a later patch, but it should be
easy enough to do even before...