netdev - Re: [PATCH rdma] net/mlx5: Fix XRC SRQ umem valid bits

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: <20181106220206.GC30490@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 22:02:13 +0000
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
CC:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma] net/mlx5: Fix XRC SRQ umem valid bits

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 04:31:08PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 12:20 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > 
> > Adapt XRC SRQ to the latest HW specification with fixed definition
> > around umem valid bits. The previous definition relied on a bit which
> > was taken for other purposes in legacy FW.
> > 
> > Fixes: bd37197554eb ("net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc with DEVX UID bits")
> > Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@...lanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
> > Hi Doug, Jason
> > 
> > This commit fixes code sent in this merge window, so I'm not marking it
> > with any rdma-rc/rdma-next. It will be better to be sent during this merge
> > window if you have extra pull request to issue, or as a -rc material, if
> > not.
> > 
> > BTW, we didn't combine reserved fields, because our convention is to align such
> > fields to 32 bits for better readability.
> > 
> > Thanks
> 
> This looks fine.  Let me know when it's in the mlx5-next tree to pull.

It needs to go to -rc... 

This needs a mlx5-rc branch for this I guess?

Jason