drivers/nvme/host/auth.c | 2 +- drivers/nvme/target/auth.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
Section 8.3.4.5.5 of the NVMe Base Specification 2.1 describes what is
included in the Response Value (RVAL) hash and SC_C should be included.
Currently we are hardcoding 0 instead of using the correct SC_C value.
Update the host and target code to use the SC_C when calculating the
RVAL instead of using 0.
Fixes: f50fff73d620 ("nvme: implement In-Band authentication")
Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
---
drivers/nvme/host/auth.c | 2 +-
drivers/nvme/target/auth.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c b/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c
index 4e8e4ddd6c8d..4ea1a46bad94 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c
@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static int nvme_auth_dhchap_setup_ctrl_response(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl,
ret = crypto_shash_update(shash, buf, 2);
if (ret)
goto out;
- memset(buf, 0, 4);
+ *buf = chap->sc_c;
ret = crypto_shash_update(shash, buf, 1);
if (ret)
goto out;
diff --git a/drivers/nvme/target/auth.c b/drivers/nvme/target/auth.c
index 839239fe877a..965690afd1bf 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/target/auth.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/target/auth.c
@@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ int nvmet_auth_ctrl_hash(struct nvmet_req *req, u8 *response,
ret = crypto_shash_update(shash, buf, 2);
if (ret)
goto out;
- memset(buf, 0, 4);
+ *buf = req->sq->sc_c;
ret = crypto_shash_update(shash, buf, 1);
if (ret)
goto out;
--
2.53.0
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 01:13:30PM +1000, alistair23@gmail.com wrote: > From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> > > Section 8.3.4.5.5 of the NVMe Base Specification 2.1 describes what is > included in the Response Value (RVAL) hash and SC_C should be included. > Currently we are hardcoding 0 instead of using the correct SC_C value. > > Update the host and target code to use the SC_C when calculating the > RVAL instead of using 0. Am I correct in reading this, the current kernel implementation is out of spec when doing secure channel concatenation (SC_C != 0) with bidirectional authentication (R1 takes SC_C into account, but not R2)? - Chris
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 2:40 AM Chris Leech <cleech@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 01:13:30PM +1000, alistair23@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> > > > > Section 8.3.4.5.5 of the NVMe Base Specification 2.1 describes what is > > included in the Response Value (RVAL) hash and SC_C should be included. > > Currently we are hardcoding 0 instead of using the correct SC_C value. > > > > Update the host and target code to use the SC_C when calculating the > > RVAL instead of using 0. > > Am I correct in reading this, the current kernel implementation is out > of spec when doing secure channel concatenation (SC_C != 0) with > bidirectional authentication (R1 takes SC_C into account, but not R2)? Correct, SC_C isn't included in the RVAL. So if SC_C is 0 it works, but if it's 1 it doesn't work Alistair > > - Chris >
On 3/18/26 17:40, Chris Leech wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 01:13:30PM +1000, alistair23@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> >> >> Section 8.3.4.5.5 of the NVMe Base Specification 2.1 describes what is >> included in the Response Value (RVAL) hash and SC_C should be included. >> Currently we are hardcoding 0 instead of using the correct SC_C value. >> >> Update the host and target code to use the SC_C when calculating the >> RVAL instead of using 0. > > Am I correct in reading this, the current kernel implementation is out > of spec when doing secure channel concatenation (SC_C != 0) with > bidirectional authentication (R1 takes SC_C into account, but not R2)? > I certainly never tested secure concatenation with bi-directional authentication (seem to have fallen into the same trap as Martin George). So the chance of regression is rather small. When you fix it, pleas add a test-case for blktests, too, such that we extend test coverage for this particular corner-case. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 2:48 AM Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote: > > On 3/18/26 17:40, Chris Leech wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 01:13:30PM +1000, alistair23@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> > >> > >> Section 8.3.4.5.5 of the NVMe Base Specification 2.1 describes what is > >> included in the Response Value (RVAL) hash and SC_C should be included. > >> Currently we are hardcoding 0 instead of using the correct SC_C value. > >> > >> Update the host and target code to use the SC_C when calculating the > >> RVAL instead of using 0. > > > > Am I correct in reading this, the current kernel implementation is out > > of spec when doing secure channel concatenation (SC_C != 0) with > > bidirectional authentication (R1 takes SC_C into account, but not R2)? > > > I certainly never tested secure concatenation with bi-directional > authentication (seem to have fallen into the same trap as Martin > George). So the chance of regression is rather small. > When you fix it, pleas add a test-case for blktests, too, such > that we extend test coverage for this particular corner-case. Ok, I'll add a blktest test-case Alistair > > Cheers, > > Hannes > -- > Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect > hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 > SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg > HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.