netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Remove validation of reserved bits in CLC Decline message

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: <8a795b8c-5613-4952-a5fc-59cead205e59@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 11:35:34 +0530
From: Mahanta Jambigi <mjambigi@...ux.ibm.com>
To: dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com, sidraya@...ux.ibm.com, wenjia@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: pasic@...ux.ibm.com, horms@...nel.org, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com,
        guwen@...ux.alibaba.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: Remove validation of reserved bits in CLC
 Decline message


On 02/09/25 9:38 am, Dust Li wrote:
>>>
>>> Did I miss something ?
>>
>> If you refer to struct *smc_clc_msg_hdr* in smc_clc.h file, typev1 member
>> represents bits 4 & 5 at offset 7. If we compare it with the CLC Decline
>> message header, it represents one of the reserved(5-7 bits) at offset 7. You
>> can refer to below link for reserved bits.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7609#page-105
> 
> Oh, I see, thanks! The patch looks good to me.
> 
> 
> BTW, I checked the rfc7609 and SMCv2.1 spec:
> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/system/files/inline-files/IBM%20Shared%20Memory%20Communications%20Version%202.1_0.pdf
> 
> I think the name type1/type2 in smc_clc_msg_hdr is confusing, as it doesn't sync
> with the spec for decline message.

I agree with you. We can address them in future. Since they are part of
reserved bits, we can ignore parsing them for now. May I add your R-b
for this patch?

> 
> Best regards,
> Dust
> 
>