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

Message-ID: <bd345f52-3435-4e40-975d-321f706857be@grimberg.me>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:34:58 +0300
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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 12/04/2024 18:24, Keith Busch wrote:
> 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.

I think that what we want is to have a special handling in the very specific
connect failure when the host/ctrl credentials mismatch, because out of all
the reasons to a connection failure, this _could_ be transient.