linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core cm

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]

Message-ID: <552CC84C.60101@profitbricks.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:57:00 +0200
From:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>
CC:	"Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Hoang-Nam Nguyen <hnguyen@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
	infinipath <infinipath@...el.com>, Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
	"Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
	Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-core cm



On 04/13/2015 09:29 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:40:35PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>>> -	if (rdma_node_get_transport(ib_device->node_type) !=
>>> RDMA_TRANSPORT_IB)
>>>> -		return;
>>>> +	int count = 0;
>>>
>>> I'm ok with this as an intermediate patch but going forward if we are
>>> going to
>>> have calls like
>>>
>>> static inline int cap_ib_cm_dev(struct ib_device *device)
>>
>> I would rather keep everything to checking per port, not per device.
>> Specifically, because we have code that does this:
> 
> Argee.
> 
> I asked Michael for it and stand by it, the property is per-port, not
> per device. Having the per-device tests just muddles the logic, look
> at the trouble Sean notices in #10 when we are now forced to think of
> things clearly.

The only per-dev checking left is all included in #24 (now may be #10 too),
which is inside:

1. cma_listen_on_dev
2. ib_ucm_add_one

I can't find a good way to apply per-port check in this two, seems like
they are at the stage which not related to port yet... any ideas on how
to improve that?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Jason
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/