From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de> To: Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com> Cc: "Niklas Cassel" <Niklas.Cassel@wdc.com>, "javier@javigon.com" <javier@javigon.com>, "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>, "sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>, "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, "kbusch@kernel.org" <kbusch@kernel.org>, "Javier González" <javier.gonz@samsung.com>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/2] nvme: enable char device per namespace Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:26:47 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210325082647.GA27622@lst.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210325020951.GA2105@localhost> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:09:51AM +0900, Minwoo Im wrote: > > I was still allowed to write to NSID2: > > > > sudo nvme zns report-zones -d 1 /dev/nvme0n2 > > SLBA: 0x0 WP: 0x1 Cap: 0x3e000 State: IMP_OPENED Type: SEQWRITE_REQ Attrs: 0x0 > > > > Should this really be allowed? > > I think this should not be allowed at all. Thanks for the testing! It should not be allowed, but it seems like a pre-existing problem as nvme_user_cmd does not verify the nsid. > > I was under the impression that Christoph's argument for implementing per > > namespace char devices, was that you should be able to do access control. > > Doesn't that mean that for the new char devices, we need to reject ioctls > > that specify a nvme_passthru_cmd.nsid != the NSID that the char device > > represents? > > > > > > Although, this is not really something new, as we already have the same > > behavior when it comes ioctls and the block devices. Perhaps we want to > > add the same verification there? > > I think there should be verifications. Yes. > > Regardless if we want to add a verification for block devices or not, > > it just seemed to me that the whole argument for introducing new char > > devices was to allow access control per namespace, which doesn't seem > > to have been taken into account, but perhaps I'm missing something. > > Any other points that you think it's not been taken account? I think it > should map to previous blkdev operations, but with some verfications > there. It would be great if you can share any other points supposed to > be supported here :) Agreed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de> To: Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com> Cc: "Niklas Cassel" <Niklas.Cassel@wdc.com>, "javier@javigon.com" <javier@javigon.com>, "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>, "sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>, "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, "kbusch@kernel.org" <kbusch@kernel.org>, "Javier González" <javier.gonz@samsung.com>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/2] nvme: enable char device per namespace Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:26:47 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20210325082647.GA27622@lst.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210325020951.GA2105@localhost> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:09:51AM +0900, Minwoo Im wrote: > > I was still allowed to write to NSID2: > > > > sudo nvme zns report-zones -d 1 /dev/nvme0n2 > > SLBA: 0x0 WP: 0x1 Cap: 0x3e000 State: IMP_OPENED Type: SEQWRITE_REQ Attrs: 0x0 > > > > Should this really be allowed? > > I think this should not be allowed at all. Thanks for the testing! It should not be allowed, but it seems like a pre-existing problem as nvme_user_cmd does not verify the nsid. > > I was under the impression that Christoph's argument for implementing per > > namespace char devices, was that you should be able to do access control. > > Doesn't that mean that for the new char devices, we need to reject ioctls > > that specify a nvme_passthru_cmd.nsid != the NSID that the char device > > represents? > > > > > > Although, this is not really something new, as we already have the same > > behavior when it comes ioctls and the block devices. Perhaps we want to > > add the same verification there? > > I think there should be verifications. Yes. > > Regardless if we want to add a verification for block devices or not, > > it just seemed to me that the whole argument for introducing new char > > devices was to allow access control per namespace, which doesn't seem > > to have been taken into account, but perhaps I'm missing something. > > Any other points that you think it's not been taken account? I think it > should map to previous blkdev operations, but with some verfications > there. It would be great if you can share any other points supposed to > be supported here :) Agreed. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvme mailing list Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-25 8:27 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-03-01 19:24 [PATCH V6 0/2] nvme: enable char device per namespace javier 2021-03-01 19:24 ` javier 2021-03-01 19:24 ` [PATCH V6 1/2] " javier 2021-03-01 19:24 ` javier 2021-03-03 9:10 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-03-03 9:10 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-03-03 10:02 ` Javier González 2021-03-03 10:02 ` Javier González 2021-03-09 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-03-09 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-03-09 12:42 ` Javier González 2021-03-09 12:42 ` Javier González 2021-03-09 15:05 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-03-09 15:05 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-03-09 21:18 ` Javier González 2021-03-09 21:18 ` Javier González 2021-03-24 12:29 ` Niklas Cassel 2021-03-24 12:29 ` Niklas Cassel 2021-03-25 2:09 ` Minwoo Im 2021-03-25 2:09 ` Minwoo Im 2021-03-25 8:26 ` hch [this message] 2021-03-25 8:26 ` hch 2021-03-25 8:39 ` Niklas Cassel 2021-03-25 8:39 ` Niklas Cassel 2021-03-25 9:34 ` Minwoo Im 2021-03-25 9:34 ` Minwoo Im 2021-03-25 12:25 ` Niklas Cassel 2021-03-25 12:25 ` Niklas Cassel 2021-03-25 12:33 ` Minwoo Im 2021-03-25 12:33 ` Minwoo Im 2021-03-25 15:14 ` Keith Busch 2021-03-25 15:14 ` Keith Busch 2021-03-01 19:24 ` [PATCH V6 2/2] nvme: allow open for nvme-generic char device javier 2021-03-01 19:24 ` javier
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20210325082647.GA27622@lst.de \ --to=hch@lst.de \ --cc=Niklas.Cassel@wdc.com \ --cc=javier.gonz@samsung.com \ --cc=javier@javigon.com \ --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com \ --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.