netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/7] net/rds: Wait for the FRMR_IS_FREE (or FRMR_IS_STALE) transition after posting IB_WR_LOCAL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5b98d27b-c6e8-0c35-97ba-ea65f9835655@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:47:26 -0700
From:   santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com
To:     Gerd Rausch <gerd.rausch@...cle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/7] net/rds: Wait for the FRMR_IS_FREE (or
 FRMR_IS_STALE) transition after posting IB_WR_LOCAL_INV

On 7/2/19 3:12 PM, Gerd Rausch wrote:
> On 02/07/2019 14.18, santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com wrote:
>> On 7/2/19 2:05 PM, Gerd Rausch wrote:
>>> What do you call "RDS_GET_MR" semantics?
>>>
>> Its a blocking socket call. Meaning after this call return to the
>> user, the key must be valid. With async registration that can't be
>> guaranteed.
>>
> 
> If the "IB_WR_REG_MR" operation does not complete successfully within
> the given (to-be-discussed?) timeout, "rds_ib_post_reg_frmr" will return
> "-EBUSY".
> 
> And that should propagate up the entire stack and make its way into
> "setsockopt" returning "-1" with "errno == EBUSY".

This is an easy case and this doesn't need any waiting since call just
came back without posting work request.
> 
> Do you see a problem with this approach?
> Did you observe a situation where this did not work?
>
Calling rds_ib_post_reg_frmr() and looking at return value doesn't
grantee that the work request postred is gping to be successful.

> Are you saying that no timeout, no matter how large, is large enough?
> If that's the case, we can consider turning the "wait_event_timeout"
> into a "wait_event".
>
Yep. Basically till the ceq handler reports successful completion of
reg_mr or inval_mr, mr is not guaranteed to be registered or
invalidated.

>>> Are you suggesting to
>>> a) Not fix this bug right now and wait until some later point in time
>> When did I say that ? I said have you explored alternate approach to
>> fix the issue and if not could you try it out.
>>
> 
> Why explore an alternate approach?
> Do you see a problem with the proposed patch (other than the choice of timeout)?
> 
Yes the timeout based proceeding isn't safe. wait_event without timeout
would make it guaranteed and give sync like behavior. This is the
behavior with FMR reg and inval calls. If you make that as
wait_event then am fine with the change.

Regards,
Santosh