| 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: <20190619081226.GI11611@mtr-leonro.mtl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:12:29 +0000
From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
To: Mark Bloch <markb@...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 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),
};
>
> 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