netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net/smc: use ib_device_get

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: <28f3582f-0394-458f-81d1-aeb872edcafa@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:07:42 +0800
From: "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>
To: <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <jgg@...pe.ca>, <leon@...nel.org>, <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
	<wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>, <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	<tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>, <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net/smc: use ib_device_get_netdev() helper
 to get netdev info



在 2024/8/9 22:59, Dust Li 写道:
> On 2024-08-09 16:31:46, Liu Jian wrote:
>> Currently, in the SMC protocol, network devices are obtained by calling
>> ib_device_ops.get_netdev(). But for some drivers, this callback function
>> is not implemented separately. Therefore, here I modified to use
>> ib_device_get_netdev() to get net_device.
>>
>> For rdma devices that do not implement ib_device_ops.get_netdev(), one of
>> the issues addressed is as follows:
>> before:
>> smcr device
>> Net-Dev         IB-Dev   IB-P  IB-State  Type        Crit  #Links  PNET-ID
>>                 rxee        1    ACTIVE  0               No       0
>>
>> after:
>> smcr device
>> Net-Dev         IB-Dev   IB-P  IB-State  Type        Crit  #Links  PNET-ID
>> enp1s0f1        rxee        1    ACTIVE  0               No       0
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Jian <liujian56@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> net/smc/smc_ib.c   | 8 +++-----
>> net/smc/smc_pnet.c | 6 +-----
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_ib.c b/net/smc/smc_ib.c
>> index 9297dc20bfe2..382351ac9434 100644
>> --- a/net/smc/smc_ib.c
>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_ib.c
>> @@ -899,9 +899,7 @@ static void smc_copy_netdev_ifindex(struct smc_ib_device *smcibdev, int port)
>> 	struct ib_device *ibdev = smcibdev->ibdev;
>> 	struct net_device *ndev;
>>
>> -	if (!ibdev->ops.get_netdev)
>> -		return;
>> -	ndev = ibdev->ops.get_netdev(ibdev, port + 1);
>> +	ndev = ib_device_get_netdev(ibdev, port + 1);
>> 	if (ndev) {
>> 		smcibdev->ndev_ifidx[port] = ndev->ifindex;
>> 		dev_put(ndev);
>> @@ -921,9 +919,9 @@ void smc_ib_ndev_change(struct net_device *ndev, unsigned long event)
>> 		port_cnt = smcibdev->ibdev->phys_port_cnt;
>> 		for (i = 0; i < min_t(size_t, port_cnt, SMC_MAX_PORTS); i++) {
>> 			libdev = smcibdev->ibdev;
>> -			if (!libdev->ops.get_netdev)
>> +			lndev = ib_device_get_netdev(libdev, i + 1);
>> +			if (!lndev)
>> 				continue;
>> -			lndev = libdev->ops.get_netdev(libdev, i + 1);
>> 			dev_put(lndev);
>> 			if (lndev != ndev)
>> 				continue;
>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_pnet.c b/net/smc/smc_pnet.c
>> index 2adb92b8c469..a55a697a48de 100644
>> --- a/net/smc/smc_pnet.c
>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_pnet.c
>> @@ -1055,11 +1055,7 @@ static void smc_pnet_find_rdma_dev(struct net_device *netdev,
>> 			continue;
>>
>> 		for (i = 1; i <= SMC_MAX_PORTS; i++) {
>> -			if (!rdma_is_port_valid(ibdev->ibdev, i))
>> -				continue;
> 
> Why remove this check ?
> 
Hi, Dust,
The same check is already in ib_device_get_netdev().
> Best regard,
> Dust
> 
> 
>> -			if (!ibdev->ibdev->ops.get_netdev)
>> -				continue;
>> -			ndev = ibdev->ibdev->ops.get_netdev(ibdev->ibdev, i);
>> +			ndev = ib_device_get_netdev(ibdev->ibdev, i);
>> 			if (!ndev)
>> 				continue;
>> 			dev_put(ndev);
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>