linux-kernel - Re: SK hynix BC511: warning: nvme nvme0: missing or invalid SUBNQN field.

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]

Message-ID: <3eafec89-0c71-5243-8545-dc0120f1678b@molgen.mpg.de>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:01:22 +0200
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dell.Client.Kernel@...l.com
Subject: Re: SK hynix BC511: warning: nvme nvme0: missing or invalid SUBNQN
 field.

Dear Keith,


Thank you for your reply?


Am 11.10.21 um 20:00 schrieb Keith Busch:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 03:08:15PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
>> Am 17.08.21 um 19:02 schrieb Keith Busch:
>>>
>>> In the section for "Identify Controller Data Structure" (section
>>> 5.17.2.1, figure 257 in spec version 2.0), the NQN definition says:
>>>
>>>     "Support for this field is mandatory if the controller supports revision
>>>     1.2.1 or later"
>>>
>>> The driver does confirm the controller's reported revision meets this
>>> requirement before emitting the warning.
>>
>> The Dell support came back to me, and said, that Hynix refuses to publish a
>> fixed firmware unless I show them a use case, where I need that field.
>>
>> Can somebody think of a use case,
> 
> Spec compliance certification. UNH test 1.1 case 2, for example.
> 
>> and why this field was made mandatory in the specification?
> 
> A dependable way to uniquely identify a specific device is generally
> useful. The NVMe TWG determined the previous methods were inadequate.

Do you know, why the serial number, shown by `nvme list`, was deemed 
inadequate to uniquely identify a specific device?

> The linux kernel will continue to use the device without this capability
> since the low level driver doesn't need it to interact with a
> controller, but the driver will warn about the non-compliance in case
> host software is relying on this field.

Yes, I understand.


Kind regards,

Paul