linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] nvme: add admin controller support. prohibit ioq creation for admin & disco ctrlrs

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: <Z-qur5YnK2ZtiRR3@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:03:11 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Kamaljit Singh <kamaljit.singh1@....com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	niklas.cassel@....com, damien.lemoal@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] nvme: add admin controller support. prohibit ioq
 creation for admin & disco ctrlrs

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 02:36:40PM -0700, Kamaljit Singh wrote:
> -static inline bool nvme_discovery_ctrl(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl)
> -{
> -	return ctrl->opts && ctrl->opts->discovery_nqn;
> -}
> -

I suppose it's fine to rename this function with an nvmf_ prefix, but
it's not really related to the rest of the patch and makes the diff
larger than necessary.

> +	/* An admin or discovery controller has one admin queue, but no I/O queues */
> +	if (nvme_admin_ctrl(&ctrl->ctrl) || nvmf_discovery_ctrl(&ctrl->ctrl)) {
> +		ctrl->ctrl.queue_count = 1;
> +	} else if (ctrl->ctrl.queue_count < 2) {
> +		/* I/O controller with no I/O queues is not allowed */
> +		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +		dev_err(ctrl->ctrl.device,
> +			"I/O controller doesn't allow zero I/O queues!\n");
> +		goto destroy_admin;
> +	}

The queue_count comes from the user. If the user provides a bad value
for an IO controller, you're erroring. If they provide a bad value for a
discovery or admin controller, you override the value. Why the different
behavior?