linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rdma: move the ib_wr

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: <0df4e4958250fd6cdb978005ace970c877269535.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:29:18 +0000
From:   "Walker, Benjamin" <benjamin.walker@...el.com>
To:     "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC:     "Howell, Seth" <seth.howell@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "monis@...lanox.com" <monis@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rdma: move the ib_wr_opcode enum to include/uapi

On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 15:08 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 08:38:16PM +0000, Walker, Benjamin wrote:
> > We've recently run into this same issue on i40iw, which appears to make the
> > same
> > mistake of using the kernel version of the enum instead of the userspace
> > version. 
> 
> Confused by this?? i40iw_upost_send does not handle the kernel numbers
> at all, as far as I can see? How does it develop a kernel dependency??
> 
> > What's the current status here? Can it be merged? I just checked and
> > do not see it merged to Linux master.
> 
> Oh! This apparently got lost, thanks for bringing it up again.
> 
> > Running a user-space NVMe-oF target with RDMA and a recent Linux kernel
> > initiator is not currently possible on rxe or i40iw because it requires send
> > with invalidate support.
> 
> Okay, but i40iw doesn't seem to support send with invalidate at all in
> userspace?
> 
> i40iw_upost_send() swithces on opcode, doesn't handle SEND_INV and
> then blows up in the default clause - how does this patch make any
> difference???

It appears I've read the error message incorrectly and was looking at the kernel
version (i40iw_post_send) as opposed to the user version (i40iw_upost_send).
Indeed, the NIC does not support SEND_WTIH_INVAL at all in that function. The
NIC does support SEND_WITH_INVAL in the kernel i40iw_post_send.

What is the correct way for a user space application to check whether a NIC
supports SEND_WITH_INVAL? We are currently examining the device_cap_flags in the
structure returned by ibv_query_device. Specifically, we're looking at
IBV_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS. However, for i40iw, that flag is set. I'm
concerned that the feature support flags are common between user space and the
kernel, but the actual support differs in this case.

Thanks,
Ben

> 
> Jason