> Quoting Jack Morgenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 RFC] Scalable Reliable Connection: API and documentation > > On Sunday 12 August 2007 19:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Why not add xrc_domain to the driver-data area? Because the xrc_domain > > > is a ib verbs-layer construct. > > > > It doesn't follow, necessarily. > > Will we be able to void breaking kernel-user ABI if we stick domain > > handle in driver-specific area? > > Are you suggesting the following: > > 1. Do NOT increment the kernel-user ABI > 2. Put all src-related changes into the driver-specific area
I was just generally saying that if we can avoid breaking the ABI, we should. What you describe seems OK to me. > 3. Rely the fact that if userspace is using driver libraries which do not > support SRC, > the src-related functions will not be present, and libibverbs will reject > the src-related > function calls. You mean, for devices that do not support SRC? No, I think it's kernel's job to validate this case. > NOTE: This may be the case for SRC function calls. However, there is no > check on qp-type in userspace during ibv_create_qp. Its possible for the > user to indicate IBV_QPT_SRC, have it go all the way to kernel-space -- and > kernel space will take the (garbage) value for the src-domain number. > > I think we will find other such holes if we don't increment the kernel-user > ABI version. So, kernel has to validate the SRC domain handle. This does not look like an issue to me, at all. -- MST _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
