linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] nvme-fabrics: short-circuit connect retries

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: <ZhlSJcTwGVrlk8OP@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:24:21 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6]  nvme-fabrics: short-circuit connect retries

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:24:04AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:35:25PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:35:04AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > > The first patch returns only kernel error codes now and avoids overwriting error
> > > codes later. Thje newly introduced helper for deciding if a reconnect should be
> > > attempted is the only place where we have the logic (and documentation).
> > > 
> > > On the target side I've separate the nvme status from the dhchap status handling
> > > which made it a bit clearer. I was tempted to refactor the code in
> > > nvmet_execute_auth_send to avoid hitting the 80 chars limit but didn't came up
> > > with something nice yet. So let's keep this change at a minimum before any
> > > refactoring attempts.
> > > 
> > > I've tested with blktests and also an real hardware for nvme-fc.
> > 
> > Thanks, series applied to nvme-6.9.
> 
> Thanks! I have an updated version here which addresses some of Sagi's
> feedback, e.g. using only one helper function. Sorry I didn't send out
> it earlier, I got a bit side tracked in testing because of the 'funky'
> results with RDMA.
> 
> Do you want me to send a complete fresh series or patches on top of this
> series? I'm fine either way.

Oh sorry, I didn't notice the discussion carried on after the "review"
tag. Please send me the update, I'll force push.