Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Kalderon, Michal]

From: Ismail, Mustafa 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:38 PM

> > > > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > > > Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 
> > >
> > Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the
> > IB_QP_PORT mask is on?
> > Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port
> > number, this one seems redundant.
> Strictly speaking it is not required, but we felt it safer to always return a 
> valid port number
> as is done in the IB case.

It's not always initialized in the IB case either. More than that if at this 
point you'll
initialize it for ib as well you'll get a failure on ib_modify_qp_is_ok, since 
when
transitioning to RTR  / RTS providing IB_QP_PORT is not a valid option.
We actually hit this issue when running rping over RoCE. (prior to your fix i 
mean ) 
I agree that in general there's no real harm, but it seems a bit out of 
context, and if we
make the change common for ib/iwarp we'll have to modify ib_modify_qp_is_ok 
which 
is written close to the spec. 

thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Kalderon, Michal]

From: Ismail, Mustafa 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:38 PM

> > > > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > > > Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> > > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 
> > >
> > Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the
> > IB_QP_PORT mask is on?
> > Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port
> > number, this one seems redundant.
> Strictly speaking it is not required, but we felt it safer to always return a 
> valid port number
> as is done in the IB case.

It's not always initialized in the IB case either. More than that if at this 
point you'll
initialize it for ib as well you'll get a failure on ib_modify_qp_is_ok, since 
when
transitioning to RTR  / RTS providing IB_QP_PORT is not a valid option.
We actually hit this issue when running rping over RoCE. (prior to your fix i 
mean ) 
I agree that in general there's no real harm, but it seems a bit out of 
context, and if we
make the change common for ib/iwarp we'll have to modify ib_modify_qp_is_ok 
which 
is written close to the spec. 

thanks,
Michal

RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Ismail, Mustafa]

> -Original Message-
> From: Kalderon, Michal [mailto:michal.kalde...@cavium.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:10 AM
> To: Marciniszyn, Mike <mike.marcinis...@intel.com>; Ismail, Mustafa
> <mustafa.ism...@intel.com>; linux-r...@vger.kernel.org;
> dledf...@redhat.com
> Cc: sw...@opengridcomputing.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> sta...@vger.kernel.org; e1000-r...@lists.sourceforge.net; Saleem, Shiraz
> <shiraz.sal...@intel.com>; Amrani, Ram <ram.amr...@cavium.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr
> 
> > From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Marciniszyn, Mike
> > > Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > > Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # v2.6.14+
> > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise <sw...@opengridcomputing.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ism...@intel.com>
> >
> Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the
> IB_QP_PORT mask is on?
> Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port
> number, this one seems redundant.
Strictly speaking it is not required, but we felt it safer to always return a 
valid port number
as is done in the IB case.

Regards,

Mustafa

RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Ismail, Mustafa]

> -Original Message-
> From: Kalderon, Michal [mailto:michal.kalde...@cavium.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:10 AM
> To: Marciniszyn, Mike ; Ismail, Mustafa
> ; linux-r...@vger.kernel.org;
> dledf...@redhat.com
> Cc: sw...@opengridcomputing.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> sta...@vger.kernel.org; e1000-r...@lists.sourceforge.net; Saleem, Shiraz
> ; Amrani, Ram 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr
> 
> > From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Marciniszyn, Mike
> > > Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > > Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 
> >
> Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the
> IB_QP_PORT mask is on?
> Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port
> number, this one seems redundant.
Strictly speaking it is not required, but we felt it safer to always return a 
valid port number
as is done in the IB case.

Regards,

Mustafa

RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Kalderon, Michal]

> From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Marciniszyn, Mike
> > Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> >
> > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 
> 
Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the 
IB_QP_PORT mask is on? 
Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port 
number, this one seems
redundant. 

Thanks,
Michal

RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Kalderon, Michal]

> From: linux-rdma-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Marciniszyn, Mike
> > Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> >
> > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 
> 
Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the 
IB_QP_PORT mask is on? 
Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port 
number, this one seems
redundant. 

Thanks,
Michal

RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Marciniszyn, Mike]

> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr
> 
> Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> 
> Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 

Tested-by: Mike Marciniszyn 

RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Marciniszyn, Mike]

> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr
> 
> Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> 
> Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> Cc:  # v2.6.14+
> Reviewed-by: Steve Wise 
> Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail 

Tested-by: Mike Marciniszyn