linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] nvmet: return DHCHAP status codes from nvmet_setup

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 23:23:25 +0300
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
 Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] nvmet: return DHCHAP status codes from
 nvmet_setup_auth()



On 09/04/2024 12:35, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...nel.org>
>
> A failure in nvmet_setup_auth() does not mean that the NVMe
> authentication command failed, so we should rather return a protocol
> error with a 'failure1' response than an NVMe status.
>
> Also update the type used for dhchap_step and dhchap_status to u8 to
> avoid confusions with nvme status. Furthermore, split dhchap_status and
> nvme status so we don't accidentally mix these return values.

What is the implications of this on the host behavior? In other
words, why is this a part of the series?