linux-kernel - Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH 1/1] IB/mlx5: Add a signature check to received EQEs and CQEs

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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 20:33:24 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     rama nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>
Cc:     Rohit Nair <rohit.sajan.kumar@...cle.com>, jgg@...pe.ca,
        saeedm@...dia.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        manjunath.b.patil@...cle.com,
        Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH 1/1] IB/mlx5: Add a signature check to
 received EQEs and CQEs

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:24:48PM -0600, rama nichanamatlu wrote:
> in-line.

<...>

> > The thing is that "vendor" failed to explain internally if this debug
> > code is useful. Like I said, extremely rare debug code shouldn't be part
> > of main data path.
> > 
> > Thanks
> 
> thank you very much for you insights into the relevance of the patch. before
> we close this topic, do want to ask on this.  what is the expectation of the
> nic hardware when it signatures / checksum's an eqe or cqe ?
> 
> if it not to be verified by the receiver host for what ever reasons, then
> why even do the checksum computation on the hardware ? 

mlx5 data sheet has more than 3000 pages in it. Not everything there is needed now.

Thanks