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]

Message-ID: <20150414174311.GA28111@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:43:11 -0400
From:	"ira.weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.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 11:25:15AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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.

They are not completely orthogonal:

A failure to init port 2 ends up ends up "killing" port 1 and releasing the
device associated resources.

static void ib_umad_add_one(struct ib_device *device)
{
...
                if (ib_umad_init_port(device, i, umad_dev,
                                      &umad_dev->port[i - s]))
                        goto err;
...

err:
        while (--i >= s) {
                if (!cap_ib_mad(device, i))
                        continue;

                ib_umad_kill_port(&umad_dev->port[i - s]);
        }

        kobject_put(&umad_dev->kobj);
}

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

The support can (and should) be orthogonal but the implementation is
incomplete.

Ira

> 
> 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/