From: Chris Leech <cleech@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
alistair23@gmail.com, yjshin0438@gmail.com
Cc: hare@suse.de, kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>,
Kamaljit Singh <kamaljit.singh@opensource.wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] nvme-auth: Don't propose NVME_AUTH_DHGROUP_NULL with SC_C
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:25:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260318-giveaway-lethargy-dbfa148ebbf0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260318075655.GA25711@lst.de>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 08:56:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 10:46:58AM +1000, alistair23@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > +#define DH_GID_LIST_OFFSET 30
>
> Note that we have a target side patch ("nvmet: auth: validate dhchap id
> list lengths") also adding defines related to this, but in a different
> place and using different naming:
>
>
> +#define NVME_AUTH_DHCHAP_MAX_HASH_IDS 30
> +#define NVME_AUTH_DHCHAP_MAX_DH_IDS 30
>
> Back in the day we usually did nvme.h patch separately to handle these
> kinds of conflicts a little better.
>
> YunJe/Alistair, maybe whoever resends next should split this out,
> add all the required values and add a pointer to the spec?
Is there a good reason to keep a single idlist[60] in the struct
defintiion and need this offset at all? Or can we repalce it with
somthing like haidlist[30], dhidlist[30]?
NVMe base spec r2.3 section is 8.3.5.5.2, where these are seperate
fields named HashIDList and DHgIDList.
- Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-18 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-18 0:46 [PATCH v3] nvme-auth: Don't propose NVME_AUTH_DHGROUP_NULL with SC_C alistair23
2026-03-18 7:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-18 16:25 ` Chris Leech [this message]
2026-03-19 4:46 ` Alistair Francis
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=20260318-giveaway-lethargy-dbfa148ebbf0@redhat.com \
--to=cleech@redhat.com \
--cc=alistair.francis@wdc.com \
--cc=alistair23@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kamaljit.singh@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=yjshin0438@gmail.com \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox