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: <552FEFAC.6080402@talpey.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:21:48 -0400
From:	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
To:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>,
	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.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>,
	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

On 4/16/2015 11:22 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 04/16/2015 04:31 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> Got it, will be changed in next version :-)
>
> To be confirmed:
> 				PORT ASSIGNED
> 	rdma_init_qp_attr	Y
> 	rdma_destroy_id		unknown
> 	cma_listen_on_dev	N
> 	cma_bind_loopback	N
> 	rdma_listen		N

Why "N"? rdma_listen() can be constrained to a single port, right?
And even if wildcarded, it needs to act on multiple ports, which is
to say, it will fail only if no ports are eligible.

Tom.


> 	rdma_connect		Y
> 	rdma_accept		Y
> 	rdma_reject		Y
> 	rdma_disconnect		Y
> 	ib_ucm_add_one		N
>
> Is this list correct?
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>>
>> - Sean
>>
>
>

--
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/