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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <aef091ff-5dd7-9f74-c55a-d1feafe1c88f@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:08:54 +0100
From:   Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Hans Wippel <ndev@...pl.net>
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 27/02/2020 16:03, Hans Wippel wrote:
> 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
> 

Thanks for taking care Hans!

-- 
Karsten

(I'm a dude)