linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 7/7] net/smc: manage system EID in SMC stack instead of ISM driver

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: <f61e8e26-47d7-4970-84b4-a57bd06df235@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 13:57:59 +0100
From:   Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
        alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com,
        raspl@...ux.ibm.com, schnelle@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 7/7] net/smc: manage system EID in SMC stack
 instead of ISM driver



On 04.12.23 13:36, Wen Gu wrote:
>> Here we only check the first smcd device to determine whether we support v2.
>> Which is ok, for today's platform firmware ISM devices, as they are always the same version.
>>
>> When you add virtual ISM devices (loopback-ism, virtio-ism) then this needs to be changed.
>> IMO the logic then needs to be "if all smcd devices support v2,
>> then smc_ism_v2_capable = true;
>> else smc_ism_v2_capable = false;"
>>
> 
> Thank you. I will change this in the loopback-ism patch set.
> 
> But I am wondering if loopback-ism coexists with s390 ISMv1, why smc_ism_v2_capable shouldn't be set?
> Is it because the SEID generated in this way is not correct if the s390 ISMv2 does not exist?

I think you're right: 'At least one IMSv2 device' is sufficient for smc_ism_v2_capable.

Actually, we could even always do smc_ism_v2_capable=true, and append an empty ISMv2 device list.
(I am not sure that would be a good idea...)

Interesting sceanrios to consider for ism-loopback:
e.g.: 2 ISMv1 device and 1 ism-loopback...