From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: REQ GID enforcement in the CM Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:55:22 -0600 Message-ID: <20111027165522.GA16878@obsidianresearch.com> References: <4EA9672F.2010601@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EA9672F.2010601-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Or Gerlitz Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Moni Shoua , Oren Duer List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > Looking on that case, I noted that the CM code (SB) checks that the > GID in the incoming REQ is present in at least of one the ports of > the relevant device, but not specifically on the port this request > arrived to, is that following IBTA? I thought it could be > problematic e.g in the case of RC QP being set by this > establishment, later the RC packets would be dropped by the device > if they have GRH and the GID isn't on that port table, isn't that? You can use the CM to establish a connection on another port, eg send CM GMPs to port 1, specify the primary data path is port 2 and specify the alternate data path is port 1. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html