Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 00/12] nvme: In-band authentication support
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@wdc.com>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211112125928.97318-1-hare@suse.de>
 <74db7c77-7cbf-4bc9-1c80-e7c42acaea64@grimberg.me>
 <f67ca46e-f421-33f7-da8b-ff6e47acf8c2@suse.de>
 <8553266f-005c-f947-4737-2108cb7062d1@grimberg.me>
 <a7363853-05af-9d7f-4d6f-b02ec756ce6b@suse.de>
 <50095ec8-3825-efa5-98bb-76b0f0fdc21e@grimberg.me>
 <31088486-0134-0dad-b052-32fd3ce2d1cf@suse.de>
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Message-ID: <0c894ac7-cf8e-4052-d56e-b8b08ead9092@grimberg.me>
Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:36:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31088486-0134-0dad-b052-32fd3ce2d1cf@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


>> Hannes, was the issue on the host side or the controller side?
>>
> The issue was actually on the host side.
> 
>> I'm a little lost into what was the actual fix...
> 
> The basic fix was this:
> 
> @@ -927,13 +944,17 @@ static int nvme_auth_dhchap_host_response(struct
> nvme_ctrl
>   *ctrl,
> 
>          if (!chap->host_response) {
>                  chap->host_response =
> nvme_auth_transform_key(ctrl->dhchap_key,
> -                                       ctrl->dhchap_key_len, chap->hash_id,
> +                                       ctrl->dhchap_key_len,
> +                                       ctrl->dhchap_key_hash,
>                                          ctrl->opts->host->nqn);
>                  if (IS_ERR(chap->host_response)) {
>                          ret = PTR_ERR(chap->host_response);
>                          chap->host_response = NULL;
>                          return ret;
>                  }
> 
> 
> (minus the linebreaks, of course).
> 'chap->hash_id' is the hash selected by the initial negotiation, which
> is wrong as we should have used the hash function selected by the key
> itself.

Makes sense. thanks.