netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] nvme-tcp: add NVMe over TCP host driver

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: <e4407485-843a-7968-c367-29d60baf8373@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:05:14 +0200
From:   Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
To:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:     <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] nvme-tcp: add NVMe over TCP host driver

+static enum blk_eh_timer_return
>>> +nvme_tcp_timeout(struct request *rq, bool reserved)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct nvme_tcp_request *req = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(rq);
>>> +    struct nvme_tcp_ctrl *ctrl = req->queue->ctrl;
>>> +    struct nvme_tcp_cmd_pdu *pdu = req->pdu;
>>> +
>>> +    dev_dbg(ctrl->ctrl.device,
>>> +        "queue %d: timeout request %#x type %d\n",
>>> +        nvme_tcp_queue_id(req->queue), rq->tag,
>>> +        pdu->hdr.type);
>>> +
>>> +    if (ctrl->ctrl.state != NVME_CTRL_LIVE) {
>>> +        union nvme_result res = {};
>>> +
>>> +        nvme_req(rq)->flags |= NVME_REQ_CANCELLED;
>>> +        nvme_end_request(rq, NVME_SC_ABORT_REQ, res);
>>> +        return BLK_EH_DONE;
>>
>> This looks odd.  It's not really the timeout handlers job to
>> call nvme_end_request here.
>
> Well.. if we are not yet LIVE, we will not trigger error
> recovery, which means nothing will complete this command so
> something needs to do it...
>
> I think that we need it for rdma too..


yes we do. and we've patches in our pipe.

I'm thinking on a wider change in the error/recovery flows but might 
send it "as is" meanwhile.


>
> ...
>
> The rest of the comments will be addressed in the next submission..