Re: [PATCH v3] RDMA/siw: Fix 64/32bit pointer inconsistency

Leon Romanovsky
2019-08-22T19:26:27Z

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:08:38PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 21:41 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 07:37:38PM +0200, Bernard Metzler wrote:
> > > Fixes improper casting between addresses and unsigned types.
> > > Changes siw_pbl_get_buffer() function to return appropriate
> > > dma_addr_t, and not u64.
> > >
> > > Also fixes debug prints. Now any potentially kernel private
> > > pointers are printed formatted as '%pK', to allow keeping that
> > > information secret.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d941bfe500be ("RDMA/siw: Change CQ flags from 64->32 bits")
> > > Fixes: b0fff7317bb4 ("rdma/siw: completion queue methods")
> > > Fixes: 8b6a361b8c48 ("rdma/siw: receive path")
> > > Fixes: b9be6f18cf9e ("rdma/siw: transmit path")
> > > Fixes: f29dd55b0236 ("rdma/siw: queue pair methods")
> > > Fixes: 2251334dcac9 ("rdma/siw: application buffer management")
> > > Fixes: 303ae1cdfdf7 ("rdma/siw: application interface")
> > > Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5 ("rdma/siw: connection management")
> > > Fixes: a531975279f3 ("rdma/siw: main include file")
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> > > Reported-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > > Reported-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Metzler <bmt@zurich.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw.h | 8 +--
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 74 ++++++++++++----------
> > > -----
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cq.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_mem.c | 14 ++---
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_mem.h | 2 +-
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_qp.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_qp_rx.c | 26 +++++-----
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_qp_tx.c | 43 ++++++++--------
> > > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_verbs.c | 40 +++++++--------
> > > 9 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw.h
> > > b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw.h
> > > index 77b1aabf6ff3..dba4535494ab 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw.h
> > > @@ -138,9 +138,9 @@ struct siw_umem {
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct siw_pble {
> > > - u64 addr; /* Address of assigned user buffer */
> > > - u64 size; /* Size of this entry */
> > > - u64 pbl_off; /* Total offset from start of PBL */
> > > + dma_addr_t addr; /* Address of assigned buffer */
> > > + unsigned int size; /* Size of this entry */
> > > + unsigned long pbl_off; /* Total offset from start of PBL */
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct siw_pbl {
> > > @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static inline void siw_crc_skb(struct
> > > siw_rx_stream *srx, unsigned int len)
> > > "MEM[0x%08x] %s: " fmt, mem->stag, __func__,
> > > ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > >
> > > #define siw_dbg_cep(cep, fmt,
> > > ...) \
> > > - ibdev_dbg(&cep->sdev->base_dev, "CEP[0x%p] %s: "
> > > fmt, \
> > > + ibdev_dbg(&cep->sdev->base_dev, "CEP[0x%pK] %s: "
> > > fmt, \
> > > cep, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> > >
> > > void siw_cq_flush(struct siw_cq *cq);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c
> > > b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c
> > > index 9ce8a1b925d2..ae7ea3ad7224 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c
> > > @@ -355,8 +355,8 @@ static int siw_cm_upcall(struct siw_cep *cep,
> > > enum iw_cm_event_type reason,
> > > getname_local(cep->sock, &event.local_addr);
> > > getname_peer(cep->sock, &event.remote_addr);
> > > }
> > > - siw_dbg_cep(cep, "[QP %u]: id 0x%p, reason=%d, status=%d\n",
> > > - cep->qp ? qp_id(cep->qp) : -1, id, reason, status);
> > > + siw_dbg_cep(cep, "[QP %u]: reason=%d, status=%d\n",
> > > + cep->qp ? qp_id(cep->qp) : -1, reason, status);
> > ^^^^
> > There is a chance that such construction (attempt to print -1 with %u)
> > will generate some sort of warning.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> I didn't see any warnings when I built it. And %u->-1 would be the same
> error on 64bit or 32bit, so I think we're safe here.

I tried -Wextra now with gcc version 9.1.1 and such code didn't produce
any warnings, so you are right, it is safe.

>
> Thanks Bernard, it's in my wip/dl-for-rc branch to get 0day testing.
>
> --
> Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> Fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD