From: Sreeraj S Kurup <sreekuttan2156239@gmail.com>
To: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbusch@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, hare@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: auth: validate DHCHAP secret before stopping authentication
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 13:09:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261003130912.2410-1-sreekuttan2156239@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0602191a-81ce-4f8a-90d0-b47ba2bc36ac@suse.de>
Hi Hannes,
Yes, I agree that stopping the currently running authentication when the admin requests a new one is intentional.
The issue I was pointing out is slightly different: if the new key is invalid, we never actually get to the point where the new authentication can be started again. "nvme_auth_stop()" has already stopped the existing authentication, and the parser returns an error before the restart path is reached.
So the question is whether writing an invalid replacement key should leave the previous authentication stopped, or whether the key should first be parsed/validated and only then replace the existing authentication state.
If the intended semantics are that an invalid key write should not disturb an already running authentication, then moving the validation before "nvme_auth_stop()" would make the operation effectively transactional:
validate new key
-> error: leave existing authentication unchanged
-> success: stop old authentication and start with new key
If, however, the intended semantics are that any attempted replacement stops the existing authentication even when the replacement is invalid, then I agree that the current behaviour is intentional and the patch doesn't fix a bug.
My concern was specifically the former behaviour, rather than "nvme_auth_stop()" itself.
Cheers,
Sreeraj
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-03 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-17 8:04 Sreeraj S Kurup
2026-09-21 13:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2026-10-03 12:51 ` Sreeraj S Kurup
2026-10-08 7:07 ` Hannes Reinecke
2026-10-03 13:09 ` Sreeraj S Kurup [this message]
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=20261003130912.2410-1-sreekuttan2156239@gmail.com \
--to=sreekuttan2156239@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--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: 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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®