netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5_core: Support MANAGE_PAGES and QUERY

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Aug 2013 01:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	moshel@...lanox.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, roland@...nel.org, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	eli@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5_core: Support MANAGE_PAGES and QUERY_PAGES
 firmware command changes

From: Moshe Lazer <moshel@...lanox.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:46:48 +0300

> In the previous QUERY_PAGES command version we used one command to get the
> required amount of boot, init and post init pages.  The new version uses the
> op_mod field to specify whether the query is for the required amount of boot,
> init or post init pages. In addition the output field size for the required
> amount of pages increased from 16 to 32 bits.
> 
> In MANAGE_PAGES command the input_num_entries and output_num_entries fields
> sizes changed from 16 to 32 bits and the PAS tables offset changed to 0x10.
> 
> In the pages request event the num_pages field also changed to 32 bits.
> 
> In the HCA-capabilities-layout the size and location of max_qp_mcg field has
> been changed to support 24 bits.
> 
> This patch isn't compatible with firmware versions < 5; however, it  turns out that the
> first GA firmware we will publish will not support previous versions so this should be OK.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Moshe Lazer <moshel@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>

You're going to have to explain a few things before I'm even going to consider
applying this.

What tree are you targetting 'net' or 'net-next'?

Next, does this break things for people using older firmware?

I don't see anything that verifies that the firmware is of a version
that uses the command data structures you're changing in this patch.

If you're not checking, this is terrible, and I find it utterly
unacceptable.

You can't just go "oh the latest firmware uses this new layout, so
we don't have to consider what the older firmware wants."

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html