From: Renato Recio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:25 PM
To: Caitlin Bestler
Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sean Hefty; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swg] RE: [openib-general] RE: [dat-discussions] socket based connectionmodel for IB proposal - round 3Any active side QP can target a passive side CM QP (QP1 or redirected QPN). However, due to the use of priviliged Q_Keys, only an active side priviliged QP can target the passive side CM QP.
It seems to me that our proposal of having the Service ID be generated by priviliged mode code, having a Service ID associated with RDMA Services (e.g. iSER, NFSeR, ...), and having priviliged mode code generate the first N bytes of the private data field (i.e. the bytes in question); allows the passive side:- Transport to validate an incoming CM message was generated by a priviliged consumer; and
- CM to know the Service ID and first N-bytes of the private data field were generated by a priviliged consumer.
How does this prevent a non-privileged client running on a remote host with current
CM
software from generating a connection request to the targeted Service
ID
with
the entire private data coming from the non-privileged
consumer.
A
current CM does not know that the Service ID requires it
to generate/validate
any
portion of the private data.
A
current CM does not know how to use a later version number or to set
a
bit
that is currently defined as reserved.
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
