linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH blktests v2 04/11] nvme: Search for specific subsysnqn in _find_nvme_loop

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <39ab50dd-b117-2e53-a7ca-b390ade7dd1e@deltatee.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:55:17 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
Cc:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v2 04/11] nvme: Search for specific subsysnqn in
 _find_nvme_loop_dev



On 2020-10-06 6:24 p.m., Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 10/6/20 17:10, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> With this patch or this series will I be able to write the testcase ?
>> This patch helps with that but other helpers introduced in this series
>> would require minor changes.
>>
>> As far as I can see, you'd only have to adjust _create_nvmet_passthru()
>> to take an optional argument because, presently, it always uses
>> $_test_dev_nvme_ctrl for the backing device.
>>
>> This can easily be done if and when someone writes such a test.
>>
>> However, I'm not even sure right now if that test would pass in the
>> kernel as is -- it seems like an odd thing to do.
>>
>> Logan
>>
> This test should pass if I remember the code correctly where we don't
> 
> have any PCIe specific checks for the passthru controller and it is an

Yes, there's no explicit restrictions, but that doesn't mean there are no bugs
with that particular stack.

> important to support this scenario in order to write device independent
> 
> testcases as rest of the testcases are.

Ok, feel free to write a test for this. It's not important to me.

Logan