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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y3+sb3RZkEO3ISpW@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 13:39:59 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> To: "lizhijian@...itsu.com" <lizhijian@...itsu.com> Cc: "zyjzyj2000@...il.com" <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>, "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>, Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>, "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, "tomasz.gromadzki@...el.com" <tomasz.gromadzki@...el.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "yangx.jy@...itsu.com" <yangx.jy@...itsu.com>, "Yasunori Gotou (Fujitsu)" <y-goto@...itsu.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [for-next PATCH v6 09/10] RDMA/cm: Make QP FLUSHABLE On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 06:07:37AM +0000, lizhijian@...itsu.com wrote: > > > On 22/11/2022 22:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 04:19:50PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote: > >> It enables flushable access flag for qp > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@...itsu.com> > >> --- > >> V5: new patch, inspired by Bob > >> --- > >> drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c | 3 ++- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c > >> index 1f9938a2c475..58837aac980b 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c > >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c > >> @@ -4096,7 +4096,8 @@ static int cm_init_qp_init_attr(struct cm_id_private *cm_id_priv, > >> qp_attr->qp_access_flags = IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE; > >> if (cm_id_priv->responder_resources) > >> qp_attr->qp_access_flags |= IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ | > >> - IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC; > >> + IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC | > >> + IB_ACCESS_FLUSHABLE; > > > > What is the point of this? Nothing checks IB_ACCESS_FLUSHABLE ? > > Previous, responder of RXE will check qp_access_flags in check_op_valid(): > 256 static enum resp_states check_op_valid(struct rxe_qp *qp, > > 257 struct rxe_pkt_info *pkt) > > 258 { > > 259 switch (qp_type(qp)) { > > 260 case IB_QPT_RC: > > 261 if (((pkt->mask & RXE_READ_MASK) && > > 262 !(qp->attr.qp_access_flags & > IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ)) || > > > 263 ((pkt->mask & RXE_WRITE_MASK) && > > 264 !(qp->attr.qp_access_flags & > IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE)) || > 265 ((pkt->mask & RXE_ATOMIC_MASK) && > > 266 !(qp->attr.qp_access_flags & > IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC))) { > 267 return RESPST_ERR_UNSUPPORTED_OPCODE; > > 268 } > > based on this, additional IB_FLUSH_PERSISTENT and IB_ACCESS_FLUSH_GLOBAL > were added in patch7 since V5 suggested by Bob. > Because of this change, QP should become FLUSHABLE correspondingly. But nothing ever reads IB_ACCESS_FLUSHABLE, so why is it added? Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists