linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib

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:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:25:15 -0600
From:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:	"ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	linux-rdma@...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>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
	Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
	Faisal Latif <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 07/28] IB/Verbs: Reform IB-ulp ipoib

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:18:07AM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:

> After more thought and reading other opinions, I must agree we should not
> have cap_foo_dev.

I looked at it a bit, and I think Sean has also basically said, CM
does not support certain mixed port combinations. iWarp and IB simply
cannot be mixed with the current CM and it doesn't look easy to fix
that. We can fix a few point areas simply, but not all of it.

So we have to have the _dev tests, only to fill the CM's need and they
must have the all true/all false/BUG semantics CM demands.

Verify on register.

> While the ports in ib_sa and ib_umad probably can be orthogonal the current
> implementation does not support that and this patch series obscures that a bit.

Really? Do you see any bugs/missed things? Both were made port
orthogonal when RoCEE was added, because RoCEE needs that.

CM wasn't because RoCEE and IB seem to use almost the same code,
though I wonder if mixing really works 100%..

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/