linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 6/7] block: add pi for nvme enhanced integrity

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:   Tue, 01 Feb 2022 23:35:35 -0500
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, colyli@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 6/7] block: add pi for nvme enhanced integrity

Keith,

This all looks pretty good to me. Only nit I have is:

> +static blk_status_t nvme_pi_type1_verify_crc(struct blk_integrity_iter *iter)
> +{
> +	return nvme_crc64_verify(iter, T10_PI_TYPE1_PROTECTION);
> +}
> +
> +static blk_status_t nvme_pi_type1_generate_crc(struct blk_integrity_iter *iter)
> +{
> +	return nvme_crc64_generate(iter, T10_PI_TYPE1_PROTECTION);
> +}

Since we will definitely need to support the CRC32C variants, the
nvme_pi_type1_ prefix is a bit too generic. Wish we had gone with Type 4
and 5 like I originally proposed in SCSI. Not a big fan of this "almost
exactly like T10 Type 1 except for all these differences" situation that
NVMe ended up with.

Anyway. So I think the NVMe-specific format helpers need to at the very
least capture that they are for the CRC64 case.

Other than that it looks OK.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering