linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] IB/core: Obtain subnet

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEBEBEC-795E-4626-A842-2BD156EBB9FE@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:29:09 +0000
From:   Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Anand Khoje <anand.a.khoje@...cle.com>,
        OFED mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] IB/core: Obtain subnet_prefix from cache in IB
 devices.



> On 14 Jun 2021, at 09:25, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 03:32:39AM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 9 Jun 2021, at 12:40, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:26:03AM +0000, Anand Khoje wrote:
>>>> Hi Leon,
>>> 
>>> Please don't do top-posting.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The set_bit()/clear_bit() and enum ib_port_data_flags  has been added as a device that can be used for future enhancements. 
>>>> Also, usage of set_bit()/clear_bit() ensures the operations on this bit is atomic.
>>> 
>>> The bitfield variables are better suit this use case.
>>> Let's don't overcomplicate code without the reason.
>> 
>> The problem is always that people tend to build on what's in there. For example, look at the bitfields in rdma_id_private, tos_set,  timeout_set, and min_rnr_timer_set.
>> 
>> What do you think will happen when, let's say, rdma_set_service_type() and rdma_set_ack_timeout() are called in close proximity in time? There is no locking, and the RMW will fail intermittently.
> 
> We are talking about device initialization flow that shouldn't be
> performed in parallel to another initialization of same device, so the
> comparison to rdma-cm is not valid here.

I can agree to that. And it is probably not worthwhile to fix the bit-fields in rdma_id_private?


Thxs, Håkon