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  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]
Date:	Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:56:38 +0300
From:	Matan Barak <>
To:	Or Gerlitz <>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <>
CC:	Doug Ledford <>,
	"" <>,
	Sean Hefty <>,
	"Somnath Kotur" <>,
	Moni Shoua <>,
	"" <>,
	Haggai Eran <>,
	Linux Netdev List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core

On 8/2/2015 12:48 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
> <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
>>> to send developers again and again to fix things which were
>>> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at
>>> some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the
>> I don't even know what you are talking about Or.
>> v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly
>> serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge
>> v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious.
> Jason, can you be more specific? I don't see any comments from you
> expect for the cover-letter, so if something broke out, sure, a fix is
> needed, but what is that?
>> That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess,
>> last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that?
> I remember you have provided review comment which pointed that the
> time-stamping series stepped on something which was there before needs
> some cleanup, not a real mess to my taste. Matan, do have the plan to
> do that work?

Indeed this design flaw was introduced when the first legacy verb was
extended. I think that falling back from extended code to legacy code
should be in the uverbs code. ib_uverbs_write will return -ENOSYS only
if both extended and non-extended don't exist. The uverbs command itself 
will call the non-extended form if the comp_mask is zero and all
data between legacy size and the given size are zero as well.
What do you think?

> Or.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists