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: <c1bcd5cc-381d-2d94-1278-f9fb5c9c0b14@grimberg.me>
Date:   Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:39:09 +0200
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc:     "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "leonro@...lanox.com" <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/core: reduce IB_POLL_BATCH constant


>> The only reason why I added this array on-stack was to allow consumers
>> that did not use ib_alloc_cq api to call it, but that seems like a
>> wrong decision when thinking it over again (as probably these users
>> did not set the wr_cqe correctly).
>>
>> How about we make ib_process_cq_direct use the cq wc array and add
>> a WARN_ON statement (and fail it gracefully) if the caller used this
>> API without calling ib_alloc_cq?
> 
> but we tried to avoid cuncurrent access to cq->wc.

Not sure its a valid use-case. But if there is a compelling
reason to keep it as is, then we can do smaller on-stack
array.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ