linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvme-tcp: Check if request has started before processing it

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: <20210301160547.GB17228@redsun51.ssa.fujisawa.hgst.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 01:05:47 +0900
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-tcp: Check if request has started before processing
 it

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:55:30PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 3/1/21 2:26 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:19:01AM +0900, Keith Busch wrote:
> >> Crashing is bad, silent data corruption is worse. Is there truly no
> >> defense against that? If not, why should anyone rely on this?
> > 
> > If we receive an response for which we don't have a started request, we
> > know that something is wrong. Couldn't we in just reset the connection
> > in this case? We don't have to pretend nothing has happened and
> > continuing normally. This would avoid a host crash and would not create
> > (more) data corruption. Or I am just too naive?
> > 
> This is actually a sensible solution.
> Please send a patch for that.

Is a bad frame a problem that can be resolved with a reset?

Even if so, the reset doesn't indicate to the user if previous commands
completed with bad data, so it still seems unreliable.