From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0FBC4742C for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C8420729 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="XmLwxauI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731287AbgKPQJc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 11:09:32 -0500 Received: from nat-hk.nvidia.com ([203.18.50.4]:40654 "EHLO nat-hk.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730679AbgKPQJc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 11:09:32 -0500 Received: from HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (Not Verified[10.18.92.9]) by nat-hk.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, AES256-SHA) id ; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:09:30 +0800 Received: from HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) by HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:26 +0000 Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.36.55) by HKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.18.16.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:26 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=QQhqcswYmf44eA80DKhm3hIq+wzw5XwWEQGQvu9qXrQF+ZWf70ET0KfG5ikDBBjGLjpVtNINotJbQ9VsoiQMRNxPVp01EMKAYbQzCa0cFlJtM1VtdowsbeA3hTumobxntIKdemBmAUkpFJLIWmTOhiXCDMdZ3K31nbQgV0vGUKXU1NDzusTadr+9C6biRXc2frTxHvQzNDoSR4TUQvMsMAILZ889kjWa6MlYn+xj1RQZKlD/Dx1cV5hUWnkgQeHXTBYGHxiL5AgvAiE9MQ7ScLycUnnwcuxwvPBeRVcLb2GkHuL3FjbbZAgFUiqez56A/eipvRsCKn32/PeTwSHCWg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=PmHj6fh69F3aR0asTX4fWHx+8a1oZpDGFL1jwiQFxH4=; b=KDh41pz8oX/KZMqhMoVUOr3ulRFzcAxTnRsBBap0yhj5gD0rSHUP+XRxtmkJvPlu4kcwmgZsb8gk1tHx2dHdfR22qYrQuoKK26j94dRjAetr8diUSivnUbnVgGzy5cmF+Xo5mL2oHrfk2Fxk0TzULk0RdVsM0h7R68dZhr1skUS4cluJNOnneuIsV7FvLj4XTUORDYJrwmo+swXoHmQ/6jV3RIQYO7216nouJE3BQd9d/LteNgkuH+TRpjOOFB91tlaxDiYOv44HKPf7w1eyJDeNUhcBxTSG7OSQ3aQCR94L+wrRPT5tE/McP67I+ohEqgLXc5bzHEVjeQS1QyyCqA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nvidia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nvidia.com; arc=none Received: from DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:14a::12) by DM6PR12MB3211.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:15c::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3564.28; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:23 +0000 Received: from DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e40c:730c:156c:2ef9]) by DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e40c:730c:156c:2ef9%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3564.028; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:23 +0000 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:09:22 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: liweihang CC: "dledford@redhat.com" , "leon@kernel.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 4/8] RDMA/hns: Add check for the validity of sl configuration in UD SQ WQE Message-ID: <20201116160922.GM917484@nvidia.com> References: <1604057975-23388-1-git-send-email-liweihang@huawei.com> <1604057975-23388-5-git-send-email-liweihang@huawei.com> <20201112183245.GA963928@nvidia.com> <5100fe6771d24c3e83fc401e490ce4fa@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5100fe6771d24c3e83fc401e490ce4fa@huawei.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: BL0PR02CA0100.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:51::41) To DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:14a::12) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from mlx.ziepe.ca (156.34.48.30) by BL0PR02CA0100.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:51::41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3564.28 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:09:23 +0000 Received: from jgg by mlx with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1keh4E-006FJS-4T; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:09:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1605542970; bh=PmHj6fh69F3aR0asTX4fWHx+8a1oZpDGFL1jwiQFxH4=; h=ARC-Seal:ARC-Message-Signature:ARC-Authentication-Results:Date: From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:X-ClientProxiedBy:MIME-Version: X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType; b=XmLwxauIJZGn6z+WQzQPIvQKLoCpnzNLunlIbv0eJumNNSNVERDqhxBXGCYr/6tCk v4jCiYJjfZtcLHCutX7TkWvU8OwQL/ZifRTIAIHmh2HyCDla5AEphgBevz97QO/I5f HExzKX4o28mSAb5u14Hb59pQpqt2jAx5JSCKBRvj9Tio2jrOiXULUGaSST4Wm/WaMA yCcDYnGALRWva5Gi/J7yjyTQtJvGPiFsHVTvaC4XEp9TMsvlnoM2vEdVo7ZvVbsiq4 dVAHZEwUm2WeR2/1buCAdTAKIivB/9vGKwsGoyXJT2QvwgHEhXeF1rGLGGHgIpdaJy /Lm2GyDEZDu/w== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 03:46:58AM +0000, liweihang wrote: > On 2020/11/13 2:33, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 07:39:31PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote: > >> From: Jiaran Zhang > >> > >> According to the RoCE v1 specification, the sl (service level) 0-7 are > >> mapped directly to priorities 0-7 respectively, sl 8-15 are reserved. The > >> driver should verify whether the value of sl is larger than 7, if so, an > >> exception should be returned. > >> > >> Fixes: d6a3627e311c ("RDMA/hns: Optimize wqe buffer set flow for post send") > >> Signed-off-by: Jiaran Zhang > >> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li > >> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c | 10 +++++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c > >> index 7a1d30f..69386a5 100644 > >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c > >> @@ -427,9 +427,10 @@ static inline int set_ud_wqe(struct hns_roce_qp *qp, > >> void *wqe, unsigned int *sge_idx, > >> unsigned int owner_bit) > >> { > >> - struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = to_hr_dev(qp->ibqp.device); > >> struct hns_roce_ah *ah = to_hr_ah(ud_wr(wr)->ah); > >> struct hns_roce_v2_ud_send_wqe *ud_sq_wqe = wqe; > >> + struct ib_device *ib_dev = qp->ibqp.device; > >> + struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev = to_hr_dev(ib_dev); > >> unsigned int curr_idx = *sge_idx; > >> int valid_num_sge; > >> u32 msg_len = 0; > >> @@ -489,6 +490,13 @@ static inline int set_ud_wqe(struct hns_roce_qp *qp, > >> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_36_TCLASS_S, ah->av.tclass); > >> roce_set_field(ud_sq_wqe->byte_40, V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_FLOW_LABEL_M, > >> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_FLOW_LABEL_S, ah->av.flowlabel); > >> + > >> + if (unlikely(ah->av.sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL)) { > >> + ibdev_err(ib_dev, > >> + "failed to fill ud av, ud sl (%d) shouldn't be larger than %d.\n", > >> + ah->av.sl, MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > > > > We should not print for things like this, IIRC userspace can cause the > > ah's sl to become set out of bounds > In "Annex A 16: RoCE", I found the following description: > > SL 0-7 are mapped directly to Priorities 0-7, respectively > > SL 8-15 are reserved. > > CA16-18: An attempt to use an Address Vector for a RoCE port containing > a reserved SL value shall result in the Invalid Address Vector verb result. > > So what should we do if the user wants to use the reserved sl? Should I just let it > do mask with 0x7 when creating AH? Fail and don't print anything Jason