linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 6/9] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:44:12 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 6/9] nvmet-passthru: Add passthru code to process
 commands



On 2020-07-26 9:41 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:33:51PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:25:17AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * The passthru NVMe driver may have a limit on the number of segments
>>> +	 * which depends on the host's memory fragementation. To solve this,
>>> +	 * ensure mdts is limitted to the pages equal to the number of
>>
>>                           limited
> 
> I've fixed this when applying.
> 
>>> +	/* don't support fuse commands */
>>> +	id->fuses = 0;
>>
>> If a host were to set a fuse, the target should return an Invalid Field
>> error. Just to future-proof, rejecting commands with any flags set
>> (other than SGL, which you handled in patch 1/9) is probably what should
>> happen, like:
>>
>>> +u16 nvmet_parse_passthru_io_cmd(struct nvmet_req *req)
>>> +{
>>
>> 	if (req->cmd->common.flags & ~NVME_CMD_SGL_ALL)
>> 		return NVME_SC_INVALID_FIELD;
>>
>> Or maybe we could obviate the need for 1/9 with something like:
>>
>> 	req->cmd->common.flags &= ~NVME_CMD_SGL_ALL;
>> 	if (req->cmd->common.flags)
>> 		return NVME_SC_INVALID_FIELD;
> 
> We'll also need this for the admin commands, but otherwise this sounds
> like a good idea.  For now I've applied the series as-is, but an
> incremental patch for this would be nice.

Great, I can send one later in the week.

Thanks,

Logan