linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: add emulation for zone-append

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, 19 Aug 2020 17:43:29 -0600
From:   David Fugate <david.fugate@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>,
        "Damien.LeMoal@....com" <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "johannes.thumshirn@....com" <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
        Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
        SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
        Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>,
        david.fugate@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: add emulation for zone-append

On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 15:10 -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> You're the one who left that thread dangling. You offered to have
> your
> firmware accommodate the Intel sponsored feature that makes your
> patch
> unnecessary in the first place. Your follow up made no sense and you
> have not responded to the queries about it.

There were queries? My key takeaways were a maintainer NAK followed by
instructions to make the Intel drive align with the driver by
implementing NOIOB. While I disagree with the rejection as it appeared
to be based entirely on politics, I can accept it as the quirk wasn't
in the spec.

It's not fair to make this same "your drive should align with the
driver" demand of Samsung because we *are* talking about a spec'ed
feature here. Technical critques of their patches and real performance
degrades observed are fair game and objective; "your company did
the nastiest possible move violating the normal NVMe procedures to make
it optional" is not.