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: <5530C021.4000006@profitbricks.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:11:13 +0200
From:	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...fitbricks.com>
To:	Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.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 04/16/2015 07:21 PM, Tom Talpey wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, it can or can't, maybe 'unknown' is better :-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> 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/