netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] net/smc: update peer ID on device changes

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]

Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:03:28 +0100
From:   Hans Wippel <ndev@...pl.net>
To:     Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     ubraun@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net/smc: update peer ID on device changes

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:44:52 +0100
Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 27/02/2020 15:09, Hans Wippel wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:13:48 +0100
> > Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 27/02/2020 12:39, Hans Wippel wrote:
> >>> From: hwipl <ndev@...pl.net>
> >>>
> >>> A SMC host's peer ID contains the MAC address of the first active RoCE
> >>> device. However, if this device becomes inactive or is removed, the peer
> >>> ID is not updated. This patch adds peer ID updates on device changes.
> >>
> >> The peer ID is used to uniquely identify an SMC host and to check if there
> >> are already established link groups to the peer which can be reused.
> >> In failover scenarios RoCE devices can go down and get active again later,
> >> but this must not change the current peer ID of the host.  
> >> The part of the MAC address that is included in the peer ID is not used for
> >> other purposes than the identification of an SMC host.
> > 
> > Is it OK to keep the peer ID if, for example, the device is removed and
> > used in a different VM?
> > 
> > Hans
> > 
> 
> Yes, exactly this case is described in the RFC (instance id):
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7609#page-93

OK, thanks for clarifying. I guess, you can ignore the RFC/patch then ;)
  Hans