| 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: <b083805e-0174-cda9-d8f8-3d453d21c811@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:52:35 +0000
From: Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
CC: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 11/15] RDMA/mlx5: Add vport metadata matching
for IB representors
On 6/19/19 1:12 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:58:51AM +0000, Mark Bloch wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2019 00:43, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:26:54AM +0000, Mark Bloch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2019 23:51, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 06:40:16AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
>>>>>> The 06/19/2019 13:04, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 04:44:26AM +0000, Jianbo Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>> The 06/18/2019 18:19, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 07:23:30PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...lanox.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If vport metadata matching is enabled in eswitch, the rule created
>>>>>>>>>> must be changed to match on the metadata, instead of source port.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...lanox.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c | 11 +++++++
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.h | 16 ++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 22e651cb5534..d4ed611de35d 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_rep.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -131,6 +131,17 @@ struct mlx5_eswitch_rep *mlx5_ib_vport_rep(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw, int vport)
>>>>>>>>>> return mlx5_eswitch_vport_rep(esw, vport);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +u32 mlx5_ib_eswitch_vport_match_metadata_enabled(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + return mlx5_eswitch_vport_match_metadata_enabled(esw);
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +u32 mlx5_ib_eswitch_get_vport_metadata_for_match(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw,
>>>>>>>>>> + u16 vport)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + return mlx5_eswitch_get_vport_metadata_for_match(esw, vport);
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. There is no need to introduce one line functions, call to that code directly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. They are in IB, and we don't want them be mixed up by the original
>>>>>>>> functions in eswitch. Please ask Mark more about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please enlighten me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was suggested by Mark in prevouis review.
>>>>>> I think it's because there are in different modules, and better to with
>>>>>> different names, so introduce there extra one line functions.
>>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Mark...
>>>>>
>>>>> mlx5_ib is full of direct function calls to mlx5_core and it is done on
>>>>> purpose for at least two reasons. First is to control in one place
>>>>> all compilation options and expose proper API interface with and without
>>>>> specific kernel config is on. Second is to emphasize that this is core
>>>>> function and save us time in refactoring and reviewing.
>>>>
>>>> This was done in order to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH,
>>>> I want to hide (as much as possible) the interactions with the eswitch level in ib_rep.c/ib_rep.h
>>>> so ib_rep.h will provide the stubs needed in case CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH isn't defined.
>>>> (Today include/linux/mlx5/eswitch.h) doesn't provide any stubs, mlx5_eswitch_get_encap_mode()
>>>> should have probably done the same.
>>>
>>> This is exactly the problem, eswitch.h should provide stubs for all
>>> exported functions, so other clients of eswitch won't need to deal with
>>> various unrelated config options.
>>
>> The way it works today, code in drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c doesn't call eswitch layer directly
>> but the functions in ib_rep.{c,h} as most often there is additional logic we must do before calling
>> the eswitch layer.
>>
>> If you look at drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/Makefile you will see ib_rep is complied only when
>> CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH id defined.
>
> This simple patch + cleanup of ib_rep.h will do the trick.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> index 67b9e7ac569a..b917ba28659e 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> @@ -59,7 +59,9 @@
> #include <linux/in.h>
> #include <linux/etherdevice.h>
> #include "mlx5_ib.h"
> +#if defined(CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH)
> #include "ib_rep.h"
> +#endif
> #include "cmd.h"
> #include "srq.h"
> #include <linux/mlx5/fs_helpers.h>
> @@ -6765,6 +6767,7 @@ static const struct mlx5_ib_profile pf_profile = {
> mlx5_ib_stage_delay_drop_cleanup),
> };
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH)
> const struct mlx5_ib_profile uplink_rep_profile = {
> STAGE_CREATE(MLX5_IB_STAGE_INIT,
> mlx5_ib_stage_init_init,
> @@ -6812,6 +6815,7 @@
> const struct mlx5_ib_profile uplink_rep_profile = {
> mlx5_ib_stage_post_ib_reg_umr_init,
> NULL),
> };
>
I really dislike seeing #if defined(CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH) inside .c files
and here it's easily avoided so I don't see a reason do it it.
Can this cleanup wait for after this series?
Mark
>>
>> so instead of having to deal with two places that contain stubs, we need to deal with only one (ib_rep.h).
>> For me it makes it easier to follow, but I can adept if you don't like it.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As my long term goal is to break drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c (that file is already 7000 LOC)
>>>> I want to group together stuff in separate files.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is right thing to do.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you prefer direct calls that's okay as well.
>>>
>>> Yes, please.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. It should be bool and not u32.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists