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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <dc94f888-971b-dbc2-d417-9e14734266fc@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:49:29 +0200 From: Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com> To: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com Cc: horms@...nel.org, alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com, guwen@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] net/smc: add vendor unique experimental options area in clc handshake Hi Guangguan Wang, thank you, some minor thoughts on this one. On 16/08/2023 10:33, Guangguan Wang wrote: > Add vendor unique experimental options area in clc handshake. In clc > accept and confirm msg, vendor unique experimental options use the > 16-Bytes reserved field, which defined in struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext > in previous version. Because of the struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext > is widely used and limit the scope of modification, this patch moves > the 16-Bytes reserved field out of struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext, and > followed with the struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext in a new struct > names struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x. > > For SMC-R first connection, in previous version, the struct smc_clc_ > first_contact_ext and the 16-Bytes reserved field has already been > included in clc accept and confirm msg. Thus, this patch use struct > smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x instead of the struct smc_clc_first_ > contact_ext and the 16-Bytes reserved field in SMC-R clc accept and > confirm msg is compatible with previous version. > > For SMC-D first connection, in previous version, only the struct smc_ > clc_first_contact_ext is included in clc accept and confirm msg, and > the 16-Bytes reserved field is not included. Thus, when the negotiated > smc release version is the version before v2.1, we still use struct > smc_clc_first_contact_ext for compatible consideration. If the negotiated > smc release version is v2.1 or later, use struct smc_clc_first_contact_ > ext_v2x instead. > > Signed-off-by: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> > Reviewed-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com> > --- > net/smc/af_smc.c | 2 +- > net/smc/smc_clc.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > net/smc/smc_clc.h | 15 +++++++++++++-- > 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c > index 97265691bc95..7b54c153bd0d 100644 > --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c > +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c > @@ -1113,7 +1113,7 @@ static int smc_connect_ism_vlan_cleanup(struct smc_sock *smc, > > #define SMC_CLC_MAX_ACCEPT_LEN \ > (sizeof(struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2) + \ > - sizeof(struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext) + \ > + sizeof(struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x) + \ > sizeof(struct smc_clc_msg_trail)) > > /* CLC handshake during connect */ > diff --git a/net/smc/smc_clc.c b/net/smc/smc_clc.c > index 7c5627c6abcc..624dc970d187 100644 > --- a/net/smc/smc_clc.c > +++ b/net/smc/smc_clc.c > @@ -391,9 +391,7 @@ smc_clc_msg_acc_conf_valid(struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2) > return false; > } else { > if (hdr->typev1 == SMC_TYPE_D && > - ntohs(hdr->length) != SMCD_CLC_ACCEPT_CONFIRM_LEN_V2 && > - (ntohs(hdr->length) != SMCD_CLC_ACCEPT_CONFIRM_LEN_V2 + > - sizeof(struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext))) > + ntohs(hdr->length) < SMCD_CLC_ACCEPT_CONFIRM_LEN_V2) > return false; > if (hdr->typev1 == SMC_TYPE_R && > ntohs(hdr->length) < SMCR_CLC_ACCEPT_CONFIRM_LEN_V2) > @@ -420,13 +418,19 @@ smc_clc_msg_decl_valid(struct smc_clc_msg_decline *dclc) > return true; > } > > -static void smc_clc_fill_fce(struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext *fce, int *len, int release_nr) > +static int smc_clc_fill_fce(struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce, > + struct smc_init_info *ini) > { > + int ret = sizeof(*fce); > + > memset(fce, 0, sizeof(*fce)); > - fce->os_type = SMC_CLC_OS_LINUX; > - fce->release = release_nr; > - memcpy(fce->hostname, smc_hostname, sizeof(smc_hostname)); > - (*len) += sizeof(*fce); > + fce->fce_v20.os_type = SMC_CLC_OS_LINUX; > + fce->fce_v20.release = ini->release_nr; I don't like that this is called fce_v20.release which can be set to v2.1 here although the struct is named v20. Maybe let us call the struct something like fce_v2_base or fce_base_v2. > + memcpy(fce->fce_v20.hostname, smc_hostname, sizeof(smc_hostname)); > + if (ini->is_smcd && ini->release_nr < SMC_RELEASE_1) > + ret = sizeof(struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext); > + > + return ret; > } > > /* check if received message has a correct header length and contains valid > @@ -986,13 +990,13 @@ static int smc_clc_send_confirm_accept(struct smc_sock *smc, > u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini) > { > struct smc_connection *conn = &smc->conn; > + struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x fce; > struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm *clc; > - struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext fce; > struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext gle; > struct smc_clc_msg_trail trl; > + int i, len, fce_len; > struct kvec vec[5]; > struct msghdr msg; > - int i, len; > > /* send SMC Confirm CLC msg */ > clc = (struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm *)clc_v2; > @@ -1018,8 +1022,10 @@ static int smc_clc_send_confirm_accept(struct smc_sock *smc, > if (eid && eid[0]) > memcpy(clc_v2->d1.eid, eid, SMC_MAX_EID_LEN); > len = SMCD_CLC_ACCEPT_CONFIRM_LEN_V2; > - if (first_contact) > - smc_clc_fill_fce(&fce, &len, ini->release_nr); > + if (first_contact) { > + fce_len = smc_clc_fill_fce(&fce, ini); > + len += fce_len; > + } > clc_v2->hdr.length = htons(len); > } > memcpy(trl.eyecatcher, SMCD_EYECATCHER, > @@ -1063,15 +1069,14 @@ static int smc_clc_send_confirm_accept(struct smc_sock *smc, > memcpy(clc_v2->r1.eid, eid, SMC_MAX_EID_LEN); > len = SMCR_CLC_ACCEPT_CONFIRM_LEN_V2; > if (first_contact) { > - smc_clc_fill_fce(&fce, &len, ini->release_nr); > - fce.v2_direct = !link->lgr->uses_gateway; > - memset(&gle, 0, sizeof(gle)); > + fce_len = smc_clc_fill_fce(&fce, ini); > + len += fce_len; > + fce.fce_v20.v2_direct = !link->lgr->uses_gateway; > if (clc->hdr.type == SMC_CLC_CONFIRM) { > + memset(&gle, 0, sizeof(gle)); > gle.gid_cnt = ini->smcrv2.gidlist.len; > len += sizeof(gle); > len += gle.gid_cnt * sizeof(gle.gid[0]); > - } else { > - len += sizeof(gle.reserved); > } > } > clc_v2->hdr.length = htons(len); > @@ -1094,7 +1099,7 @@ static int smc_clc_send_confirm_accept(struct smc_sock *smc, > sizeof(trl); > if (version > SMC_V1 && first_contact) { > vec[i].iov_base = &fce; > - vec[i++].iov_len = sizeof(fce); > + vec[i++].iov_len = fce_len; > if (!conn->lgr->is_smcd) { > if (clc->hdr.type == SMC_CLC_CONFIRM) { > vec[i].iov_base = &gle; > @@ -1102,9 +1107,6 @@ static int smc_clc_send_confirm_accept(struct smc_sock *smc, > vec[i].iov_base = &ini->smcrv2.gidlist.list; > vec[i++].iov_len = gle.gid_cnt * > sizeof(gle.gid[0]); > - } else { > - vec[i].iov_base = &gle.reserved; > - vec[i++].iov_len = sizeof(gle.reserved); > } > } > } > diff --git a/net/smc/smc_clc.h b/net/smc/smc_clc.h > index b923e89acafb..6133276a8839 100644 > --- a/net/smc/smc_clc.h > +++ b/net/smc/smc_clc.h > @@ -147,7 +147,9 @@ struct smc_clc_msg_proposal_prefix { /* prefix part of clc proposal message*/ > struct smc_clc_msg_smcd { /* SMC-D GID information */ > struct smc_clc_smcd_gid_chid ism; /* ISM native GID+CHID of requestor */ > __be16 v2_ext_offset; /* SMC Version 2 Extension Offset */ > - u8 reserved[28]; > + u8 vendor_oui[3]; > + u8 vendor_exp_options[5]; > + u8 reserved[20]; Could we either make those variables a bit more self explaining via their name (e.g. vendor_organization_uid) or adding a comment /* vendor organizationally unique identifier */ > }; > > struct smc_clc_smcd_v2_extension { > @@ -231,8 +233,17 @@ struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext { > u8 hostname[SMC_MAX_HOSTNAME_LEN]; > }; > > +struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x { > + struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext fce_v20; as stated at the top where the release is assigned i'm not completly happy with the naming. > + u8 reserved3[4]; > + __be32 vendor_exp_options; > + u8 reserved4[8]; > +} __packed; /* format defined in > + * IBM Shared Memory Communications Version 2 (Third Edition) > + * (https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7009315) > + */ > + > struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext { > - u8 reserved[16]; > u8 gid_cnt; > u8 reserved2[3]; > u8 gid[][SMC_GID_SIZE];
Powered by blists - more mailing lists