netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 03/25] net/mlx5: Set uid as part of RQ commands

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: <20180919211035.GQ11367@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:10:35 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 03/25] net/mlx5: Set uid as part of RQ commands

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:40:45AM -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 02:03:56PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > >
> > > Set uid as part of RQ commands so that the firmware can manage the
> > > RQ object in a secured way.
> > >
> > > That will enable using an RQ that was created by verbs application
> > > to be used by the DEVX flow in case the uid is equal.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/qp.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > >  include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h                |  6 +++---
> > >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/qp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/qp.c
> > > index 04f72a1cdbcc..0ca68ef54d93 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/qp.c
> > > @@ -540,6 +540,17 @@ int mlx5_core_xrcd_dealloc(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u32 xrcdn)
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mlx5_core_xrcd_dealloc);
> > >
> > > +static void destroy_rq_tracked(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u32 rqn, u16 uid)
> > > +{
> > > +     u32 in[MLX5_ST_SZ_DW(destroy_rq_in)]   = {0};
> > > +     u32 out[MLX5_ST_SZ_DW(destroy_rq_out)] = {0};
> >
> > = {} is the preferred version of this, right?
> >
> > {0} explicitly initializes the first element to zero and only works if
> > the first element happens to be something integral..
> >
> 
> Both are perfectly ok in our scenarios.
> I remember one of the syntaxes yielded a statistic checker warning, i
> don't remember which syntax and what static checker :) ..

{0} will throw a 'missing-field-initializers' compiler warning,
however it recognizes '= {}' as an idom meaning 'zero everything' and
does not throw a warning.

Jason