netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] net/smc: improve peer ID in CLC decline for SMC-R

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: <20200222073241.GH209126@unreal>
Date:   Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:32:41 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Hans Wippel <ndev@...pl.net>
Cc:     kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, ubraun@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net/smc: improve peer ID in CLC decline for SMC-R

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:08:05PM +0100, Hans Wippel wrote:
> According to RFC 7609, all CLC messages contain a peer ID that consists
> of a unique instance ID and the MAC address of one of the host's RoCE
> devices. But if a SMC-R connection cannot be established, e.g., because
> no matching pnet table entry is found, the current implementation uses a
> zero value in the CLC decline message although the host's peer ID is set
> to a proper value.
>
> This patch changes the peer ID handling in two ways:
>
> (1) If no RoCE and no ISM device is usable for a connection, there is no
> LGR and the LGR check in smc_clc_send_decline() prevents that the peer
> ID is copied into the CLC decline message for both SMC-D and SMC-R. So,
> this patch modifies the check to also accept the case of no LGR. Also,
> only a valid peer ID is copied into the decline message.
>
> (2) The patch initializes the peer ID to a random instance ID and a zero
> MAC address. If a RoCE device is in the host, the MAC address part of
> the peer ID is overwritten with the respective address. Also, a function
> for checking if the peer ID is valid is added. A peer ID is considered
> valid if the MAC address part contains a non-zero MAC address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans Wippel <ndev@...pl.net>
> ---
>  net/smc/smc_clc.c |  9 ++++++---
>  net/smc/smc_ib.c  | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>  net/smc/smc_ib.h  |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_clc.c b/net/smc/smc_clc.c
> index 3e16b887cfcf..e2d3b5b95632 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc_clc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/smc_clc.c
> @@ -372,9 +372,12 @@ int smc_clc_send_decline(struct smc_sock *smc, u32 peer_diag_info)
>  	dclc.hdr.length = htons(sizeof(struct smc_clc_msg_decline));
>  	dclc.hdr.version = SMC_CLC_V1;
>  	dclc.hdr.flag = (peer_diag_info == SMC_CLC_DECL_SYNCERR) ? 1 : 0;
> -	if (smc->conn.lgr && !smc->conn.lgr->is_smcd)
> -		memcpy(dclc.id_for_peer, local_systemid,
> -		       sizeof(local_systemid));
> +	if (!smc->conn.lgr || !smc->conn.lgr->is_smcd) {
> +		if (smc_ib_is_valid_local_systemid()) {
> +			memcpy(dclc.id_for_peer, local_systemid,
> +			       sizeof(local_systemid));
> +		}
> +	}
>  	dclc.peer_diagnosis = htonl(peer_diag_info);
>  	memcpy(dclc.trl.eyecatcher, SMC_EYECATCHER, sizeof(SMC_EYECATCHER));
>
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_ib.c b/net/smc/smc_ib.c
> index 6756bd5a3fe4..203dd05d7113 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc_ib.c
> +++ b/net/smc/smc_ib.c
> @@ -37,11 +37,7 @@ struct smc_ib_devices smc_ib_devices = {	/* smc-registered ib devices */
>  	.list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(smc_ib_devices.list),
>  };
>
> -#define SMC_LOCAL_SYSTEMID_RESET	"%%%%%%%"
> -
> -u8 local_systemid[SMC_SYSTEMID_LEN] = SMC_LOCAL_SYSTEMID_RESET;	/* unique system
> -								 * identifier
> -								 */
> +u8 local_systemid[SMC_SYSTEMID_LEN] = {0};	/* unique system identifier */

There is no need to assign 0 for global variables, they are initialized
to zero by default.

Thanks