Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] [RFC] [PATCH 1/3] RDMA
> CM:?addrdma_get/set_optioncalls to get/set path records
>
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >Sean, what's up with patch numbering?
>
> The second patch labeled 1/3 is really 2/3. I resent 2/3 with the correct
> subject heading.
>
> >>+static ssize_t ucma_set_option(struct ucma_file *file, const char __user
> >>*inbuf,
> >>+ int in_len, int out_len)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct rdma_ucm_set_option cmd;
> >>+ struct ucma_context *ctx;
> >>+ int ret;
> >>+
> >>+ if (copy_from_user(&cmd, inbuf, sizeof(cmd)))
> >>+ return -EFAULT;
> >>+
> >>+ ctx = ucma_get_ctx(file, cmd.id);
> >>+ if (IS_ERR(ctx))
> >>+ return PTR_ERR(ctx);
> >>+
> >>+ ret = rdma_set_option(ctx->cm_id, cmd.level, cmd.optname,
> >>+ (void *) (unsigned long) cmd.optval,
> >>+ cmd.optlen);
> >
> >
> >Casting a value from userspace to void * looks iffy.
>
> This should be a userspace pointer. The kernel setsockopt interface takes
> a char * for the option value.
Where is it?
> Maybe this would be better?
>
> - Sean
>
I think it would be better to have rdma_set_path/rdma_get_path,
for kernel consumers, and have ucma handle copying from/to userspace. No?
--
MST
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
