netdev - Re: [PATCH for-next V1 1/2] net/mlx5: Fix mlx5 ifc cmd_hca

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: <CALzJLG96VWEk_9NC9UTtYG7OMW8zHboGxJyrMEfQCT34rFFT5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:54:02 +0300
From:	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
	Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next V1 1/2] net/mlx5: Fix mlx5 ifc cmd_hca_cap bad offsets

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 07:11:03PM +0300, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>
>> Fixes: b0844444590e ("net/mlx5_core: Introduce access function to read internal timer ")
>> Fixes: b4ff3a36d3e4 ("net/mlx5: Use offset based reserved field names in the IFC header file")
>
> Are you sure those are right? b doesn't have the
> reserved_at names.
>

Yes, as stated in the commit message, change b0844444590e replaced two
reserved fields with 3 fields with a different size than the original
two, which broke all the offsets of the fields that came after.

>
> You know, the reserved_XXX just need to have unique unchanging
> numbers, it doesn't matter what the numbers are - but you have to stop
> changing them :( That is the key to avoiding conflicts when
> backporting/merging/etc.
>
> I guess the big rename has already landed, but simply stopping the
> practice of renumbing the reserved fields would have been enough.
>

This was a mistake which had to be fixed, the offset numbering was
wrong from day one of introducing those offsets, I prefer to do it
now, once and forever.

But i totally agree, we will do our best to keep this file clean as
much as possible.
Thanks for your concern.

Saeed.