linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/mad: Use IDR for agent IDs

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: <20180610203027.GF5560@mellanox.com>
Date:   Sun, 10 Jun 2018 14:30:27 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, hans.westgaard.ry@...cle.com,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
        Pravin Shedge <pravin.shedge4linux@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/mad: Use IDR for agent IDs

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 03:25:05PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 03:43:05AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 09:30:28AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > 1. IBTA spec doesn't talk at all about the size of TransactionID, more
> > > on that in section "13.4.6.4 TRANSACTION ID USAGE", the specification
> > > says: "The contents of the TransactionID (TID) field are implementation-
> > > dependent. So let's don't call it mlx4 bug.
> >
> > I was loosely paraphrasing the original bug report; suggested rewording
> > of the comments gratefully accepted.
> 
> Just replace "mlx4 bug" with something like "to comply with mlx4
> implementation".

Well, it is a bug. Blindly replacing the upper 8 bits of the TID in a
driver without accommodation from the core is totally, bonkers wrong.

The original concept was that the 1<<24 limit would come from the
driver and only mlx4 would have less than 1<<32, because only mlx4
does this thing..

Thanks Matt,
Jason