Ping^2 for review/pickup by the rdma folks, please? thanks -- PMM
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 16:49, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 12:36, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In query_port() we pass the address of a local pvrdma_port_attr > > struct to the rdma_query_backend_port() function. Unfortunately, > > rdma_backend_query_port() wants a pointer to a struct ibv_port_attr, > > and the two are not the same length. > > > > Coverity spotted this (CID 1507146): pvrdma_port_attr is 48 bytes > > long, and ibv_port_attr is 52 bytes, because it has a few extra > > fields at the end. > > > > Fortunately, all we do with the attrs struct after the call is to > > read a few specific fields out of it which are all at the same > > offsets in both structs, so we can simply make the local variable the > > correct type. This also lets us drop the cast (which should have > > been a bit of a warning flag that we were doing something wrong > > here). > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <[email protected]> > > --- > > I don't know anything about the rdma code so this fix is based > > purely on looking at the code, and is untested beyond just > > make check/make check-avocado. > > --- > > hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c | 5 ++--- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c b/hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c > > index c6ed0259821..d31c1875938 100644 > > --- a/hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c > > +++ b/hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c > > @@ -129,14 +129,13 @@ static int query_port(PVRDMADev *dev, union > > pvrdma_cmd_req *req, > > { > > struct pvrdma_cmd_query_port *cmd = &req->query_port; > > struct pvrdma_cmd_query_port_resp *resp = &rsp->query_port_resp; > > - struct pvrdma_port_attr attrs = {}; > > + struct ibv_port_attr attrs = {}; > > > > if (cmd->port_num > MAX_PORTS) { > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - if (rdma_backend_query_port(&dev->backend_dev, > > - (struct ibv_port_attr *)&attrs)) { > > + if (rdma_backend_query_port(&dev->backend_dev, &attrs)) { > > return -ENOMEM; > > } > > Ping for review/testing by the rdma folks, please ? > Whose tree should this patch go through?
