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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <30f26111-2b17-6ef2-6c58-4b16c890ef87@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:54:43 +0200
From:   Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] nvme: move ns id info to struct nvme_ns_head



On 13/12/2023 17:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
> 

Not yet.
I will work on it and send it soon with some another small bug fix I found.
Then we'll need to rebase this series on top.