linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] nvme: move ns id info to struct nvme_ns

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: <20231213153833.GC7301@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:38:34 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
Cc:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] nvme: move ns id info to struct nvme_ns_head

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:54:25PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > I think that the whole PI stuff needs to be taken with a bit more
> > consideration because if not all paths agree on the pi (as we have
> > hbas with fabrics) we can't just override or do a logical or on
> > the capabilities/attributes.
> 
> So should the PI variables stay in nvme_ns at this point? Or should I
> add some checks which avoid an override and warn in this case?

Didn't we merge the patch from max to require uniform PI setups
for all controllers that we're using in a multipath setup?  I'll
check the code after finishing a few more things if no one remembers
offhand.