RFC: Seeking to collect CXL spec v3.0 questions and clarifications against implementation

RFC: Seeking to collect CXL spec v3.0 questions and clarifications against implementation

[Dave Jiang]

Hi All,
As Jonathan suggested [1], we should start a discussion thread to gather 
up questions / clarifications from the process of implementing CXL 
software against spec 3.0 so they can be fed back to the CXL SSWG.

I'll start with some from the implementation of persistent memory 
security commands:

CXL memdev Passphrase Secure Erase:
1. Command sent with master passphrase, but master passphrase disabled. 
While in v3 8.2.9.8.6.3 Disable Passphrase, it states clearly that "When 
the master passphrase is disabled, the device shall return invalid Input 
for the Passphrase Secure Erase command with the master passphrase", 
this sentence could be duplicated under 8.2.9.8.6.6 Passphrase Secure 
Erase to provide better clarity of device behavior.

2. Command sent with user passphrase, but user passphrase disabled. 
Needs clarification in 8.2.9.8.6.6 on device behavior. Under the 
"current passphrase" it indicates the field is ignored. Does this mean 
the secure erase proceed same as a "secure erase" command? This behavior 
is different than the master passphrase scenario above.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20221116113724.00006171@Huawei.com/