Re: [PATCH v2 03/14] nvmet: Implement CCR nvme command

Mohamed Khalfella
2026-02-08T23:10:37Z

On Sat 2026-02-07 15:58:49 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2026 19:52, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> > On Wed 2026-02-04 01:55:18 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> On 2/4/26 01:44, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> >>> On Wed 2026-02-04 01:38:44 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >>>> On 2/3/26 19:40, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue 2026-02-03 04:19:50 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/30/26 23:34, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> >>>>>>> @@ -1501,6 +1516,38 @@ struct nvmet_ctrl *nvmet_ctrl_find_get(const char *subsysnqn,
> >>>>>>> return ctrl;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +struct nvmet_ctrl *nvmet_ctrl_find_get_ccr(struct nvmet_subsys *subsys,
> >>>>>>> + const char *hostnqn, u8 ciu,
> >>>>>>> + u16 cntlid, u64 cirn)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + struct nvmet_ctrl *ctrl;
> >>>>>>> + bool found = false;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&subsys->lock);
> >>>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(ctrl, &subsys->ctrls, subsys_entry) {
> >>>>>>> + if (ctrl->cntlid != cntlid)
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> + if (strncmp(ctrl->hostnqn, hostnqn, NVMF_NQN_SIZE))
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>> Why do we compare the hostnqn here, too? To my understanding the host
> >>>>>> NQN is tied to the controller, so the controller ID should be sufficient
> >>>>>> here.
> >>>>> We got cntlid from CCR nvme command and we do not trust the value sent by
> >>>>> the host. We check hostnqn to confirm that host is actually connected to
> >>>>> the impacted controller. A host should not be allowed to reset a
> >>>>> controller connected to another host.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Errm. So we're starting to not trust values in NVMe commands?
> >>>> That is a very slippery road.
> >>>> Ultimately it would require us to validate the cntlid on each
> >>>> admin command. Which we don't.
> >>>> And really there is no difference between CCR and any other
> >>>> admin command; you get even worse effects if you would assume
> >>>> a misdirected 'FORMAT' command.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't. Security is _not_ a concern here.
> >>> I do not think the check hurts. If you say it is wrong I will delete it.
> >>>
> >> It's not 'wrong', It's inconsistent. The argument that the contents of
> >> an admin command may be wrong applies to _every_ admin command.
> >> Yet we never check on any of those commands.
> >> So I fail to see why this command requires special treatment.
> > Okay, I will delete this check.
>
> It is a very different command than other commands that nvmet serves. Format
> is different because it is an attached namespace, hence the host should
> be able
> to format it. If it would have been possible to access a namespace that
> is not mapped
> to a controller, then this check would have been warranted I think.
>
> There have been some issues lately opened on nvme-tcp that expose
> attacks that can
> crash the kernel with some hand-crafted commands, I'd say that this is a
> potential attack vector.

For an attacker to exploit CCR command they will have to guess both CUI
(8bit) and CIRN(64bit) random values correctly. I do not see how an
attacker can find these values without being connected to the impacted
controller.