Re: [PATCH v3] nvme-auth: Don't propose NVME_AUTH_DHGROUP_NULL with SC_C

[Chris Leech]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 08:56:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 10:46:58AM +1000, alistair23@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >  
> > +#define DH_GID_LIST_OFFSET 30
> 
> Note that we have a target side patch ("nvmet: auth: validate dhchap id
> list lengths") also adding defines related to this, but in a different
> place and using different naming:
> 
> 
> +#define NVME_AUTH_DHCHAP_MAX_HASH_IDS 30
> +#define NVME_AUTH_DHCHAP_MAX_DH_IDS 30
> 
> Back in the day we usually did nvme.h patch separately to handle these
> kinds of conflicts a little better.
> 
> YunJe/Alistair, maybe whoever resends next should split this out,
> add all the required values and add a pointer to the spec?

Is there a good reason to keep a single idlist[60] in the struct
defintiion and need this offset at all? Or can we repalce it with
somthing like haidlist[30], dhidlist[30]?

NVMe base spec r2.3 section is 8.3.5.5.2, where these are seperate
fields named HashIDList and DHgIDList.

- Chris