netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] net/smc: add vendor unique experimental options area in clc handshake

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: <e6a97304-801d-476c-f8cf-9828175aaf34@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:23:09 +0800
From: Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.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



On 2023/8/17 05:49, Jan Karcher wrote:
> Hi Guangguan Wang,
> 
> thank you, some minor thoughts on this one.
> 
> On 16/08/2023 10:33, Guangguan Wang wrote:
...
>>   -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.
> 

fce_v2_base sounds better.


>> 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 */
> 

I will fix it in the next version.

>>   };
>>     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.
> 

Thanks,
Guangguan Wang