[PATCH rdma-next 0/6] Collection of mlx5_ib fixes

[PATCH rdma-next 0/6] Collection of mlx5_ib fixes

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

Hi,

Collection of independent fixes for mlx5_ib driver.

Thanks

Leon Romanovsky (1):
  RDMA/mlx5: Fix fortify source warning while accessing Eth segment

Mark Zhang (1):
  IB/mlx5: Don't expose debugfs entries for RRoCE general parameters if
    not supported

Or Har-Toov (3):
  RDMA/mlx5: Uncacheable mkey has neither rb_key or cache_ent
  RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys
  RDMA/mlx5: Adding remote atomic access flag to updatable flags

Yishai Hadas (1):
  RDMA/mlx5: Relax DEVX access upon modify commands

 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cong.c    |  6 ++++++
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c    |  2 +-
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h |  2 +-
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c      | 18 ++++++++++--------
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c      |  2 +-
 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h        |  2 +-
 include/linux/mlx5/qp.h              |  5 ++++-
 7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH rdma-next 1/6] RDMA/mlx5: Fix fortify source warning while accessing Eth segment

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>

 ------------[ cut here ]------------
 memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 56) of single field "eseg->inline_hdr.start" at /var/lib/dkms/mlnx-ofed-kernel/5.8/build/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c:131 (size 2)
 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 293779 at /var/lib/dkms/mlnx-ofed-kernel/5.8/build/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c:131 mlx5_ib_post_send+0x191b/0x1a60 [mlx5_ib]
 Modules linked in: 8021q garp mrp stp llc rdma_ucm(OE) rdma_cm(OE) iw_cm(OE) ib_ipoib(OE) ib_cm(OE) ib_umad(OE) mlx5_ib(OE) ib_uverbs(OE) ib_core(OE) mlx5_core(OE) pci_hyperv_intf mlxdevm(OE) mlx_compat(OE) tls mlxfw(OE) psample nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4 nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6 nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat nf_nat nf_conntrack nf_defrag_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv4 ip_set nf_tables libcrc32c nfnetlink mst_pciconf(OE) knem(OE) vfio_pci vfio_pci_core vfio_iommu_type1 vfio iommufd irqbypass cuse nfsv3 nfs fscache netfs xfrm_user xfrm_algo ipmi_devintf ipmi_msghandler binfmt_misc crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul polyval_clmulni polyval_generic ghash_clmulni_intel sha512_ssse3 snd_pcsp aesni_intel crypto_simd cryptd snd_pcm snd_timer joydev snd soundcore input_leds serio_raw evbug nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd grace sch_fq_codel sunrpc drm efi_pstore ip_tables x_tables autofs4 psmouse virtio_net net_failover failover floppy
  [last unloaded: mlx_compat(OE)]
 CPU: 0 PID: 293779 Comm: ssh Tainted: G           OE      6.2.0-32-generic #32~22.04.1-Ubuntu
 Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011
 RIP: 0010:mlx5_ib_post_send+0x191b/0x1a60 [mlx5_ib]
 Code: 0c 01 00 a8 01 75 25 48 8b 75 a0 b9 02 00 00 00 48 c7 c2 10 5b fd c0 48 c7 c7 80 5b fd c0 c6 05 57 0c 03 00 01 e8 95 4d 93 da <0f> 0b 44 8b 4d b0 4c 8b 45 c8 48 8b 4d c0 e9 49 fb ff ff 41 0f b7
 RSP: 0018:ffffb5b48478b570 EFLAGS: 00010046
 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000000
 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
 RBP: ffffb5b48478b628 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffb5b48478b5e8
 R13: ffff963a3c609b5e R14: ffff9639c3fbd800 R15: ffffb5b480475a80
 FS:  00007fc03b444c80(0000) GS:ffff963a3dc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
 CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
 CR2: 0000556f46bdf000 CR3: 0000000006ac6003 CR4: 00000000003706f0
 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  ? show_regs+0x72/0x90
  ? mlx5_ib_post_send+0x191b/0x1a60 [mlx5_ib]
  ? __warn+0x8d/0x160
  ? mlx5_ib_post_send+0x191b/0x1a60 [mlx5_ib]
  ? report_bug+0x1bb/0x1d0
  ? handle_bug+0x46/0x90
  ? exc_invalid_op+0x19/0x80
  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1b/0x20
  ? mlx5_ib_post_send+0x191b/0x1a60 [mlx5_ib]
  mlx5_ib_post_send_nodrain+0xb/0x20 [mlx5_ib]
  ipoib_send+0x2ec/0x770 [ib_ipoib]
  ipoib_start_xmit+0x5a0/0x770 [ib_ipoib]
  dev_hard_start_xmit+0x8e/0x1e0
  ? validate_xmit_skb_list+0x4d/0x80
  sch_direct_xmit+0x116/0x3a0
  __dev_xmit_skb+0x1fd/0x580
  __dev_queue_xmit+0x284/0x6b0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0xe/0x50
  ? __flush_work.isra.0+0x20d/0x370
  ? push_pseudo_header+0x17/0x40 [ib_ipoib]
  neigh_connected_output+0xcd/0x110
  ip_finish_output2+0x179/0x480
  ? __smp_call_single_queue+0x61/0xa0
  __ip_finish_output+0xc3/0x190
  ip_finish_output+0x2e/0xf0
  ip_output+0x78/0x110
  ? __pfx_ip_finish_output+0x10/0x10
  ip_local_out+0x64/0x70
  __ip_queue_xmit+0x18a/0x460
  ip_queue_xmit+0x15/0x30
  __tcp_transmit_skb+0x914/0x9c0
  tcp_write_xmit+0x334/0x8d0
  tcp_push_one+0x3c/0x60
  tcp_sendmsg_locked+0x2e1/0xac0
  tcp_sendmsg+0x2d/0x50
  inet_sendmsg+0x43/0x90
  sock_sendmsg+0x68/0x80
  sock_write_iter+0x93/0x100
  vfs_write+0x326/0x3c0
  ksys_write+0xbd/0xf0
  ? do_syscall_64+0x69/0x90
  __x64_sys_write+0x19/0x30
  do_syscall_64+0x59/0x90
  ? do_user_addr_fault+0x1d0/0x640
  ? exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x3b/0xd0
  ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0x9/0x20
  ? irqentry_exit+0x43/0x50
  ? exc_page_fault+0x92/0x1b0
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
 RIP: 0033:0x7fc03ad14a37
 Code: 10 00 f7 d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b7 0f 1f 00 f3 0f 1e fa 64 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 10 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 51 c3 48 83 ec 28 48 89 54 24 18 48 89 74 24
 RSP: 002b:00007ffdf8697fe8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000008024 RCX: 00007fc03ad14a37
 RDX: 0000000000008024 RSI: 0000556f46bd8270 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000556f46bb1800 R08: 0000000000007fe3 R09: 0000000000000000
 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002
 R13: 0000556f46bc66b0 R14: 000000000000000a R15: 0000556f46bb2f50
  </TASK>
 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c | 2 +-
 include/linux/mlx5/qp.h         | 5 ++++-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c
index df1d1b0a3ef7..9947feb7fb8a 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/wr.c
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static void set_eth_seg(const struct ib_send_wr *wr, struct mlx5_ib_qp *qp,
 		 */
 		copysz = min_t(u64, *cur_edge - (void *)eseg->inline_hdr.start,
 			       left);
-		memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, pdata, copysz);
+		memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.data, pdata, copysz);
 		stride = ALIGN(sizeof(struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg) -
 			       sizeof(eseg->inline_hdr.start) + copysz, 16);
 		*size += stride / 16;
diff --git a/include/linux/mlx5/qp.h b/include/linux/mlx5/qp.h
index bd53cf4be7bd..f0e55bf3ec8b 100644
--- a/include/linux/mlx5/qp.h
+++ b/include/linux/mlx5/qp.h
@@ -269,7 +269,10 @@ struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg {
 	union {
 		struct {
 			__be16 sz;
-			u8     start[2];
+			union {
+				u8     start[2];
+				DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(u8, data);
+			};
 		} inline_hdr;
 		struct {
 			__be16 type;
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH rdma-next 2/6] IB/mlx5: Don't expose debugfs entries for RRoCE general parameters if not supported

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Mark Zhang <markzhang@nvidia.com>

debugfs entries for RRoCE general CC parameters must be exposed only when
they are supported, otherwise when accessing them there may be a syndrome
error in kernel log, for example:

$ cat /sys/kernel/debug/mlx5/0000:08:00.1/cc_params/rtt_resp_dscp
cat: '/sys/kernel/debug/mlx5/0000:08:00.1/cc_params/rtt_resp_dscp': Invalid argument
$ dmesg
 mlx5_core 0000:08:00.1: mlx5_cmd_out_err:805:(pid 1253): QUERY_CONG_PARAMS(0x824) op_mod(0x0) failed, status bad parameter(0x3), syndrome (0x325a82), err(-22)

Fixes: 66fb1d5df6ac ("IB/mlx5: Extend debug control for CC parameters")
Reviewed-by: Edward Srouji <edwards@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Mark Zhang <markzhang@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cong.c | 6 ++++++
 include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h     | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cong.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cong.c
index f87531318feb..a78a067e3ce7 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cong.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/cong.c
@@ -458,6 +458,12 @@ void mlx5_ib_init_cong_debugfs(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, u32 port_num)
 	dbg_cc_params->root = debugfs_create_dir("cc_params", mlx5_debugfs_get_dev_root(mdev));
 
 	for (i = 0; i < MLX5_IB_DBG_CC_MAX; i++) {
+		if ((i == MLX5_IB_DBG_CC_GENERAL_RTT_RESP_DSCP_VALID ||
+		     i == MLX5_IB_DBG_CC_GENERAL_RTT_RESP_DSCP))
+			if (!MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, roce) ||
+			    !MLX5_CAP_ROCE(mdev, roce_cc_general))
+				continue;
+
 		dbg_cc_params->params[i].offset = i;
 		dbg_cc_params->params[i].dev = dev;
 		dbg_cc_params->params[i].port_num = port_num;
diff --git a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
index bf5320b28b8b..2c10350bd422 100644
--- a/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
+++ b/include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
@@ -1103,7 +1103,7 @@ struct mlx5_ifc_roce_cap_bits {
 	u8         sw_r_roce_src_udp_port[0x1];
 	u8         fl_rc_qp_when_roce_disabled[0x1];
 	u8         fl_rc_qp_when_roce_enabled[0x1];
-	u8         reserved_at_7[0x1];
+	u8         roce_cc_general[0x1];
 	u8	   qp_ooo_transmit_default[0x1];
 	u8         reserved_at_9[0x15];
 	u8	   qp_ts_format[0x2];
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH rdma-next 3/6] RDMA/mlx5: Relax DEVX access upon modify commands

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@nvidia.com>

Relax DEVX access upon modify commands to be UVERBS_ACCESS_READ.

The kernel doesn't need to protect what firmware protects, or what
causes no damage to anyone but the user.

As firmware needs to protect itself from parallel access to the same
object, don't block parallel modify/query commands on the same object in
the kernel side.

This change will allow user space application to run parallel updates to
different entries in the same bulk object.

Tested-by: Tamar Mashiah <tmashiah@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c
index 4d8f5180134e..9d91790a2af2 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c
@@ -2950,7 +2950,7 @@ DECLARE_UVERBS_NAMED_METHOD(
 	MLX5_IB_METHOD_DEVX_OBJ_MODIFY,
 	UVERBS_ATTR_IDR(MLX5_IB_ATTR_DEVX_OBJ_MODIFY_HANDLE,
 			UVERBS_IDR_ANY_OBJECT,
-			UVERBS_ACCESS_WRITE,
+			UVERBS_ACCESS_READ,
 			UA_MANDATORY),
 	UVERBS_ATTR_PTR_IN(
 		MLX5_IB_ATTR_DEVX_OBJ_MODIFY_CMD_IN,
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH rdma-next 4/6] RDMA/mlx5: Uncacheable mkey has neither rb_key or cache_ent

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>

As some mkeys can't be modified with UMR due to some UMR limitations,
like the size of translation that can be updated, not all user mkeys can
be cached.

Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
index 4bdf3da579f4..69b1722c2280 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
@@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mkey {
 	unsigned int ndescs;
 	struct wait_queue_head wait;
 	refcount_t usecount;
-	/* User Mkey must hold either a rb_key or a cache_ent. */
+	/* Cacheable user Mkey must hold either a rb_key or a cache_ent. */
 	struct mlx5r_cache_rb_key rb_key;
 	struct mlx5_cache_ent *cache_ent;
 };
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>

In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
destroyed.
Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
mkeys should be destroyed.

Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
@@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)
+{
+	return mkey.cache_ent || mkey.rb_key.ndescs;
+}
+
 int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
 {
 	struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr = to_mmr(ibmr);
@@ -1901,12 +1906,6 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
 		mr->sig = NULL;
 	}
 
-	/* Stop DMA */
-	if (mr->umem && mlx5r_umr_can_load_pas(dev, mr->umem->length))
-		if (mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
-		    cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr))
-			mr->mmkey.cache_ent = NULL;
-
 	if (mr->umem && mr->umem->is_peer) {
 		rc = mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr);
 		if (rc)
@@ -1914,7 +1913,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
 		ib_umem_stop_invalidation_notifier(mr->umem);
 	}
 
-	if (!mr->mmkey.cache_ent) {
+	/* Stop DMA */
+	if (!is_cacheable_mkey(mr->mmkey) || mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
+	    cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr)) {
 		rc = destroy_mkey(to_mdev(mr->ibmr.device), mr);
 		if (rc)
 			return rc;
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Junxian Huang]

On 2024/1/25 20:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
> 
> In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
> is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
> when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
> Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
> but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
> destroyed.
> Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
> should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
> mkeys should be destroyed.
> 
> Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
> Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)

I think it's better using a pointer as the parameter instead of the struct itself.

Junxian

> +{
> +	return mkey.cache_ent || mkey.rb_key.ndescs;
> +}
> +
>  int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>  {
>  	struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr = to_mmr(ibmr);
> @@ -1901,12 +1906,6 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>  		mr->sig = NULL;
>  	}
>  
> -	/* Stop DMA */
> -	if (mr->umem && mlx5r_umr_can_load_pas(dev, mr->umem->length))
> -		if (mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
> -		    cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr))
> -			mr->mmkey.cache_ent = NULL;
> -
>  	if (mr->umem && mr->umem->is_peer) {
>  		rc = mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr);
>  		if (rc)
> @@ -1914,7 +1913,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>  		ib_umem_stop_invalidation_notifier(mr->umem);
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!mr->mmkey.cache_ent) {
> +	/* Stop DMA */
> +	if (!is_cacheable_mkey(mr->mmkey) || mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
> +	    cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr)) {
>  		rc = destroy_mkey(to_mdev(mr->ibmr.device), mr);
>  		if (rc)
>  			return rc;

Re: [PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Zhu Yanjun]

在 2024/1/25 20:52, Junxian Huang 写道:
> 
> 
> On 2024/1/25 20:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
>>
>> In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
>> is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
>> when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
>> Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
>> but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
>> destroyed.
>> Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
>> should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
>> mkeys should be destroyed.
>>
>> Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
>> Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>> index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>> @@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>> +static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)
> 
> I think it's better using a pointer as the parameter instead of the struct itself.

Why do you think that a pointer is better that the struct itself? In 
kernel doc, is there any rule about this?

Thanks.

Zhu Yanjun

> 
> Junxian
> 
>> +{
>> +	return mkey.cache_ent || mkey.rb_key.ndescs;
>> +}
>> +
>>   int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>   {
>>   	struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr = to_mmr(ibmr);
>> @@ -1901,12 +1906,6 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>   		mr->sig = NULL;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	/* Stop DMA */
>> -	if (mr->umem && mlx5r_umr_can_load_pas(dev, mr->umem->length))
>> -		if (mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
>> -		    cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr))
>> -			mr->mmkey.cache_ent = NULL;
>> -
>>   	if (mr->umem && mr->umem->is_peer) {
>>   		rc = mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr);
>>   		if (rc)
>> @@ -1914,7 +1913,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>   		ib_umem_stop_invalidation_notifier(mr->umem);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	if (!mr->mmkey.cache_ent) {
>> +	/* Stop DMA */
>> +	if (!is_cacheable_mkey(mr->mmkey) || mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
>> +	    cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr)) {
>>   		rc = destroy_mkey(to_mdev(mr->ibmr.device), mr);
>>   		if (rc)
>>   			return rc;

Re: [PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Junxian Huang]

On 2024/1/25 21:30, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> 在 2024/1/25 20:52, Junxian Huang 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/1/25 20:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
>>> is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
>>> when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
>>> Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
>>> but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
>>> destroyed.
>>> Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
>>> should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
>>> mkeys should be destroyed.
>>>
>>> Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
>>> Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>> @@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
>>>       return ret;
>>>   }
>>>   +static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)
>>
>> I think it's better using a pointer as the parameter instead of the struct itself.
> 
> Why do you think that a pointer is better that the struct itself? In kernel doc, is there any rule about this?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Zhu Yanjun
> 

I don't think there is a rule, but just like what Leon said, it's a suboptimal chioce.

Junxian

>>
>> Junxian
>>
>>> +{
>>> +    return mkey.cache_ent || mkey.rb_key.ndescs;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>>   {
>>>       struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr = to_mmr(ibmr);
>>> @@ -1901,12 +1906,6 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>>           mr->sig = NULL;
>>>       }
>>>   -    /* Stop DMA */
>>> -    if (mr->umem && mlx5r_umr_can_load_pas(dev, mr->umem->length))
>>> -        if (mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
>>> -            cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr))
>>> -            mr->mmkey.cache_ent = NULL;
>>> -
>>>       if (mr->umem && mr->umem->is_peer) {
>>>           rc = mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr);
>>>           if (rc)
>>> @@ -1914,7 +1913,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_dereg_mr(struct ib_mr *ibmr, struct ib_udata *udata)
>>>           ib_umem_stop_invalidation_notifier(mr->umem);
>>>       }
>>>   -    if (!mr->mmkey.cache_ent) {
>>> +    /* Stop DMA */
>>> +    if (!is_cacheable_mkey(mr->mmkey) || mlx5r_umr_revoke_mr(mr) ||
>>> +        cache_ent_find_and_store(dev, mr)) {
>>>           rc = destroy_mkey(to_mdev(mr->ibmr.device), mr);
>>>           if (rc)
>>>               return rc;
> 

Re: [PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 08:52:57PM +0800, Junxian Huang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/1/25 20:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
> > 
> > In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
> > is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
> > when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
> > Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
> > but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
> > destroyed.
> > Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
> > should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
> > mkeys should be destroyed.
> > 
> > Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
> > Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > @@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)
> 
> I think it's better using a pointer as the parameter instead of the struct itself.

Indeed, that looks like a typo

Thanks,
Jason

Re: [PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 09:38:24AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 08:52:57PM +0800, Junxian Huang wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2024/1/25 20:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
> > > 
> > > In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
> > > is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
> > > when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
> > > Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
> > > but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
> > > destroyed.
> > > Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
> > > should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
> > > mkeys should be destroyed.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
> > > Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > > index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > > @@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)
> > 
> > I think it's better using a pointer as the parameter instead of the struct itself.
> 
> Indeed, that looks like a typo

It is suboptimal to pass struct by value, because whole struct will be copied,
but it is not a mistake too.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 

Re: [PATCH rdma-next 5/6] RDMA/mlx5: Change check for cacheable user mkeys

[Zhu Yanjun]

在 2024/1/26 4:02, Leon Romanovsky 写道:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 09:38:24AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 08:52:57PM +0800, Junxian Huang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/1/25 20:30, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>> From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
>>>>
>>>> In the dereg flow, UMEM is not a good enough indication whether an MR
>>>> is from userspace since in mlx5_ib_rereg_user_mr there are some cases
>>>> when a new MR is created and the UMEM of the old MR is set to NULL.
>>>> Currently when mlx5_ib_dereg_mr is called on the old MR, UMEM is NULL
>>>> but cache_ent can be different than NULL. So, the mkey will not be
>>>> destroyed.
>>>> Therefore checking if mkey is from user application and cacheable
>>>> should be done by checking if rb_key or cache_ent exist and all other kind of
>>>> mkeys should be destroyed.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: dd1b913fb0d0 ("RDMA/mlx5: Cache all user cacheable mkeys on dereg MR flow")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>>> index 12bca6ca4760..3c241898e064 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
>>>> @@ -1857,6 +1857,11 @@ static int cache_ent_find_and_store(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
>>>>   	return ret;
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>> +static bool is_cacheable_mkey(struct mlx5_ib_mkey mkey)
>>>
>>> I think it's better using a pointer as the parameter instead of the struct itself.
>>
>> Indeed, that looks like a typo
> 
> It is suboptimal to pass struct by value, because whole struct will be copied,

Agree. With a pointer, an address is passed. With the struct, the whole 
struct is copied and passed. The overhead of calling function is less 
with a pointer.

Zhu Yanjun

> but it is not a mistake too.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>

[PATCH rdma-next 6/6] RDMA/mlx5: Adding remote atomic access flag to updatable flags

[Leon Romanovsky]

From: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>

Currently IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC is blocked from being updated via UMR
although in some cases it should be possible. These cases are checked in
mlx5r_umr_can_reconfig function.

Fixes: ef3642c4f54d ("RDMA/mlx5: Fix error unwinds for rereg_mr")
Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
index 3c241898e064..8bf6cec79e52 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
@@ -1581,7 +1581,8 @@ static bool can_use_umr_rereg_access(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
 	unsigned int diffs = current_access_flags ^ target_access_flags;
 
 	if (diffs & ~(IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE | IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE |
-		      IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ | IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING))
+		      IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ | IB_ACCESS_RELAXED_ORDERING |
+		      IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_ATOMIC))
 		return false;
 	return mlx5r_umr_can_reconfig(dev, current_access_flags,
 				      target_access_flags);
-- 
2.43.0