linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core cma/ucm

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: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FC22C3@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:31:34 +0000
From:	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>
To:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal@....mellanox.co.il>
CC:	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>,
	"Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 10/27] IB/Verbs: Reform cm related part in IB-core
 cma/ucm

> > This is equivalent to today where the checks are per node rather than
> > per port.
> >
> > Should all checks here be port 1 based or only certain ones like listen
> > ? For example, in connect/reject/disconnect, don't we already have port
> > ? Guess this can be dealt with later as this is not a regression from
> > the current implementation.
> 
> Yeah, these parts of cma may need more carve in future, like some new
> callback
> for different CM type as Sean suggested.
> 
> Maybe directly using 1 could help to highlight the problem ;-)

Only a few checks need to be per device.  I think I pointed those out previously.  Testing should show anywhere that we miss fairly quickly, since port would still be 0.  For the checks that can be updated to be per port, I would rather go ahead and convert them.

- Sean