[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170504131523.GV22833@mtr-leonro.local>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 16:15:23 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: net/smc and the RDMA core
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:08:39PM +0200, Ursula Braun wrote:
>
>
> On 05/04/2017 10:48 AM, hch@....de wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 11:43:50AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >> I would also suggest that you stop exposing the DMA MR for remote
> >> access (at least by default) and use a proper reg_mr operations with a
> >> limited lifetime on a properly sized buffer.
> >
> > Yes, exposing the default DMA MR is a _major_ security risk. As soon
> > as SMC is enabled this will mean a remote system has full read/write
> > access to the local systems memory.
> >
> > There іs a reason why I removed the ib_get_dma_mr function and replaced
> > it with the IB_PD_UNSAFE_GLOBAL_RKEY key that has _UNSAFE_ in the name
> > and a very long comment explaining why, and I'm really disappointed that
> > we got a driver merged that instead of asking on the relevant list on
> > why a change unexpertong a function it needed happened and instead
> > tried the hard way to keep a security vulnerarbility alive.
> >
> Thanks for pointing out these problems. We will address them.
>
Out of curiosity, when do you plan to address all this?
Thanks
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists