linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rdma-next 4/5] RDMA/hns: Add reset process for RoCE in hip08

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: <5AFE484B.2080206@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 11:28:11 +0800
From:   "Wei Hu (Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC:     <dledford@...hat.com>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <xavier.huwei@....com>,
        <lijun_nudt@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 4/5] RDMA/hns: Add reset process for RoCE in
 hip08



On 2018/5/17 23:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:02:52PM +0800, Wei Hu (Xavier) wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
>> index 86ef15f..e1c44a6 100644
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
>> @@ -774,6 +774,9 @@ static int hns_roce_cmq_send(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev,
>>  	int ret = 0;
>>  	int ntc;
>>  
>> +	if (hr_dev->is_reset)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>>  	spin_lock_bh(&csq->lock);
>>  
>>  	if (num > hns_roce_cmq_space(csq)) {
>> @@ -4790,6 +4793,7 @@ static int hns_roce_hw_v2_init_instance(struct hnae3_handle *handle)
>>  	return 0;
>>  
>>  error_failed_get_cfg:
>> +	handle->priv = NULL;
>>  	kfree(hr_dev->priv);
>>  
>>  error_failed_kzalloc:
>> @@ -4803,14 +4807,70 @@ static void hns_roce_hw_v2_uninit_instance(struct hnae3_handle *handle,
>>  {
>>  	struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = (struct hns_roce_dev *)handle->priv;
>>  
>> +	if (!hr_dev)
>> +		return;
>> +
>>  	hns_roce_exit(hr_dev);
>> +	handle->priv = NULL;
>>  	kfree(hr_dev->priv);
>>  	ib_dealloc_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
>>  }
> Why are these hunks here? If init fails then uninit should not be
> called, so why meddle with priv?
In hns_roce_hw_v2_init_instance function, we evaluate handle->priv with 
hr_dev,
We want clear the value in hns_roce_hw_v2_uninit_instance function.
So we can ensure no problem in RoCE driver.


static int hns_roce_hw_v2_init_instance(struct hnae3_handle *handle)
{
    struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev;
    int ret;

    hr_dev = (struct hns_roce_dev *)ib_alloc_device(sizeof(*hr_dev));
    if (!hr_dev)
        return -ENOMEM;

   ...// other code

    handle->priv = hr_dev;

    ....// other code

    return 0;

error_xxx:
    handle->priv = NULL;
    ...// other code

error_yyyy:
    ib_dealloc_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);

    return ret;
}

static void hns_roce_hw_v2_uninit_instance(struct hnae3_handle *handle,
                       bool reset)
{
    struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = (struct hns_roce_dev *)handle->priv;

    if (!hr_dev)
        return;

    hns_roce_exit(hr_dev);
    handle->priv = NULL;
    kfree(hr_dev->priv);
    ib_dealloc_device(&hr_dev->ib_dev);
}

>
> Jason
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>