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  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]
Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:05:34 -0400
From:   Dennis Dalessandro <>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <>,
        Gal Pressman <>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,
        Adit Ranadive <>,
        Ariel Elior <>,
        Bernard Metzler <>,
        Christian Benvenuti <>,,,
        Michal Kalderon <>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <>,
        Mustafa Ismail <>,
        Naresh Kumar PBS <>,
        Nelson Escobar <>,
        Potnuri Bharat Teja <>,
        Selvin Xavier <>,
        Shiraz Saleem <>,
        Steve Wise <>,
        VMware PV-Drivers <>,
        Weihang Li <>,
        Wenpeng Liang <>,
        Yishai Hadas <>,
        Zhu Yanjun <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 8/9] RDMA: Globally allocate and release QP

On 7/20/21 4:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 04:42:11PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 18/07/2021 15:00, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <>
>>> Convert QP object to follow IB/core general allocation scheme.
>>> That change allows us to make sure that restrack properly kref
>>> the memory.
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <>
>> EFA and core parts look good to me.
>> Reviewed-by: Gal Pressman <>
>> Tested-by: Gal Pressman <>

Leon, I pulled your tree and tested, things look good so far.

For rdmavt and core:
Reviewed-by: Dennis Dalessandro <>
Tested-by: Dennis Dalessandro <>

> Thanks a lot.
>>> +static inline void *rdma_zalloc_obj(struct ib_device *dev, size_t size,
>>> +				    gfp_t gfp, bool is_numa_aware)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (is_numa_aware && dev->ops.get_numa_node)
>> Honestly I think it's better to return an error if a numa aware allocation is
>> requested and get_numa_node is not provided.
> We don't want any driver to use and implement ".get_numa_node()" callback.
> Initially, I thought about adding WARN_ON(driver_id != HFI && .get_numa_node)
> to the device.c, but decided to stay with comment in ib_verbs.h only.

Maybe you could update that comment and add that it's for performance? This way
its clear we are different for a reason. I'd be fine adding a WARN_ON_ONCE like
you mention here. I don't think we need to fail the call but drawing attention
to it would not necessarily be a bad thing. Either way, RB/TB for me stands.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists