Re: [PATCH 2/2] IB/rdmavt: modify rdmavt/qp.c for UML

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:06:23PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> When building rdmavt for ARCH=um, qp.c has a build error on a reference
> to the x86-specific cpuinfo field 'x86_cache_size'. This value is then
> used to determine whether to use cacheless_memcpy() or not.
> Provide a fake value to LLC for CONFIG_UML. Then provide a separate
> verison of cacheless_memcpy() for CONFIG_UML that is just a plain
> memcpy(), like the calling code uses.
> 
> Prevents these build errors:
> 
> ../drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c: In function ‘rvt_wss_llc_size’:
> ../drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c:88:23: error: ‘struct cpuinfo_um’ has no member named ‘x86_cache_size’; did you mean ‘x86_capability’?
>   return boot_cpu_data.x86_cache_size;
> 
> ../drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c: In function ‘cacheless_memcpy’:
> ../drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c:100:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘__copy_user_nocache’; did you mean ‘copy_user_page’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   __copy_user_nocache(dst, (void __user *)src, n, 0);
> 
> Fixes: 68f5d3f3b654 ("um: add PCI over virtio emulation driver")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>  drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> +++ linux-next-20211224/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c
> @@ -84,10 +84,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ib_rvt_state_ops);
>  /* platform specific: return the last level cache (llc) size, in KiB */
>  static int rvt_wss_llc_size(void)
>  {
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_UML)
>  	/* assume that the boot CPU value is universal for all CPUs */
>  	return boot_cpu_data.x86_cache_size;
> +#else /* CONFIG_UML */
> +	return 1024;	/* fake 1 MB LLC size */
> +#endif
>  }
>  
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_UML)
>  /* platform specific: cacheless copy */
>  static void cacheless_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, size_t n)
>  {
> @@ -99,6 +104,13 @@ static void cacheless_memcpy(void *dst,
>  	 */
>  	__copy_user_nocache(dst, (void __user *)src, n, 0);
>  }
> +#else
> +/* for CONFIG_UML, this is just a plain memcpy() */
> +static void cacheless_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, size_t n)
> +{
> +	memcpy(dst, src, n);
> +}
> +#endif

memcpy is not the same thing as __copy_user - the hint is in the
__user cast..

It should by copy_from_user(), I think, and this is all just somehow
broken to not check the return code.

Why are you trying to make a HW driver compile on UML? Is there any
way to even use a driver like this in a UML environment?

Jason