netdev - Re: [ofa-general] InfiniBand/RDMA merge plans for 2.6.24

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: <adaveadjk5i.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:18:01 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	"Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>
Cc:	"Steve Wise" <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	"netdev" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, anilgv@...adcom.com,
	uri@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] InfiniBand/RDMA merge plans for 2.6.24

 > > I've been meaning to track down the bnx2 iscsi offload patch to look
 > > and see if this issue is addressed, since the same problem seems to
 > > exist: it seems an iscsi connection and a main stack tcp connection
 > > might share the same 4-tuple unless something is done to avoid that
 > > happening.

 > iSCSI does not do passive listens, only active connections to the
 > target.  But you're right, the port space is still shared between iSCSI
 > and the main stack.  We currently rely on user apps binding to the main
 > stack to reserve certain ephemeral ports, and telling the iSCSI driver
 > which ports to use.

Got it... I wasn't thinking that clearly, but it is clear that a full
4-tuple collision with only active connections is quite unlikely.  I
guess you would have to make both an offloaded and a non-offloaded
iSCSI connection to the same target and get really unlucky with
ephemeral port allocation.  So in practice I guess it's not an issue
at all with your driver yet.

However, do you have any plans to support iSCSI offload for targets?
Also, looking at the first CNIC patch, I can't help but notice that
you seem to have at least some support for iWARP there.  How does the
CNIC look?  Does it share the same interface/addresses as the
non-offload NIC, or does it create a completely separate netdevice?

I want to make sure that whatever solution we come up with for cxgb3
doesn't cause problems for you.  And of course if you have a better
idea than what Steve has come up with, that would be great :)

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html