* [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing @ 2022-10-21 7:52 Li Zhijian 2022-10-21 7:52 ` Li Zhijian 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-21 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zyjzyj2000, jgg, leon, linux-rdma; +Cc: linux-kernel, Li Zhijian Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it happends. Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> --- drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { if (!res->replay) { mr = qp->resp.mr; + WARN_ON(!mr); qp->resp.mr = NULL; } else { mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); - if (mr) - rxe_put(mr); + rxe_put(mr); if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload; -- 2.31.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-21 7:52 [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-21 7:52 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-21 14:39 ` Zhu Yanjun 2022-10-24 3:26 ` Li Zhijian 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-21 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zyjzyj2000, jgg, leon, linux-rdma; +Cc: linux-kernel, Li Zhijian Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it happends. Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> --- drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { if (!res->replay) { mr = qp->resp.mr; + WARN_ON(!mr); qp->resp.mr = NULL; } else { mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); - if (mr) - rxe_put(mr); + rxe_put(mr); if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload; -- 2.31.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-21 7:52 ` Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-21 14:39 ` Zhu Yanjun 2022-10-22 1:09 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-24 3:26 ` Li Zhijian 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Zhu Yanjun @ 2022-10-21 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Li Zhijian; +Cc: jgg, leon, linux-rdma, linux-kernel On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could > be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. > > I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed > at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it > happends. If I get you correctly, you confronted a problem, but you can not figure it out. So you send it upstream as a patch? I am not sure if it is a good idea. Zhu Yanjun > > Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> > --- > drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 > --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, > if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { > if (!res->replay) { > mr = qp->resp.mr; > + WARN_ON(!mr); > qp->resp.mr = NULL; > } else { > mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); > @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, > > rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), > payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); > - if (mr) > - rxe_put(mr); > + rxe_put(mr); > > if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { > u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload; > -- > 2.31.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-21 14:39 ` Zhu Yanjun @ 2022-10-22 1:09 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-23 18:05 ` Bob Pearson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-22 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhu Yanjun; +Cc: jgg, leon, linux-rdma, linux-kernel On 21/10/2022 22:39, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> wrote: >> Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could >> be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. >> >> I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed >> at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it >> happends. > If I get you correctly, you confronted a problem, Not exactly, I removed the mr checking since i think this checking is not correct. the newly added WARN_ON(!mr) is the only once place where the mr can be NULL but not handled correctly. At least with/without this patch, once WARN_ON(!mr) is triggered, kernel will go something wrong. so i want to place this WARN_ON(!mr) to point to the problem. Thanks Zhijian > but you can not figure it out. > So you send it upstream as a patch? > > I am not sure if it is a good idea. > > Zhu Yanjun > >> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> >> --- >> drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >> index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >> @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >> if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { >> if (!res->replay) { >> mr = qp->resp.mr; >> + WARN_ON(!mr); >> qp->resp.mr = NULL; >> } else { >> mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); >> @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >> >> rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), >> payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); >> - if (mr) >> - rxe_put(mr); >> + rxe_put(mr); >> >> if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { >> u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload; >> -- >> 2.31.1 >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-22 1:09 ` Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-23 18:05 ` Bob Pearson 2022-10-24 2:25 ` Zhu Yanjun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Bob Pearson @ 2022-10-23 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Li Zhijian, Zhu Yanjun; +Cc: jgg, leon, linux-rdma, linux-kernel On 10/21/22 20:09, Li Zhijian wrote: > > > On 21/10/2022 22:39, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could >>> be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. >>> >>> I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed >>> at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it >>> happends. >> If I get you correctly, you confronted a problem, > Not exactly, I removed the mr checking since i think this checking is not correct. > the newly added WARN_ON(!mr) is the only once place where the mr can be NULL but not handled correctly. > At least with/without this patch, once WARN_ON(!mr) is triggered, kernel will go something wrong. > > so i want to place this WARN_ON(!mr) to point to the problem. > > Thanks > Zhijian > >> but you can not figure it out. >> So you send it upstream as a patch? >> >> I am not sure if it is a good idea. >> >> Zhu Yanjun >> >>> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>> index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>> @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >>> if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { >>> if (!res->replay) { >>> mr = qp->resp.mr; >>> + WARN_ON(!mr); >>> qp->resp.mr = NULL; >>> } else { >>> mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); >>> @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >>> >>> rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), >>> payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); >>> - if (mr) >>> - rxe_put(mr); >>> + rxe_put(mr); >>> >>> if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { >>> u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload >>> -- >>> 2.31.1 >>> > Li is correct that the only way mr could be NULL is if qp->resp.mr == NULL. So the 'if (mr)' is not needed if that is the case. The read_reply subroutine is reached from a new rdma read operation after going through check_rkey or from a previous rdma read operations from get_req if qp->resp.res != NULL or from a duplicate request where the previous responder resource is found. In all these cases the mr is set. Initially in check_rkey where if it can't find the mr it causes an RKEY_VIOLATION. Thereafter the rkey is stored in the responder resources and looked up for each packet to get an mr or cause an RKEY_VIOLATION. So the mr can't be NULL. I think you can leave out the WARN and just drop the if (mr). Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-23 18:05 ` Bob Pearson @ 2022-10-24 2:25 ` Zhu Yanjun 2022-10-24 3:15 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-24 14:09 ` Bob Pearson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Zhu Yanjun @ 2022-10-24 2:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bob Pearson; +Cc: Li Zhijian, jgg, leon, linux-rdma, linux-kernel On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:05 AM Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/21/22 20:09, Li Zhijian wrote: > > > > > > On 21/10/2022 22:39, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>> Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could > >>> be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. > >>> > >>> I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed > >>> at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it > >>> happends. > >> If I get you correctly, you confronted a problem, > > Not exactly, I removed the mr checking since i think this checking is not correct. > > the newly added WARN_ON(!mr) is the only once place where the mr can be NULL but not handled correctly. > > At least with/without this patch, once WARN_ON(!mr) is triggered, kernel will go something wrong. > > > > so i want to place this WARN_ON(!mr) to point to the problem. > > > > Thanks > > Zhijian > > > >> but you can not figure it out. > >> So you send it upstream as a patch? > >> > >> I am not sure if it is a good idea. > >> > >> Zhu Yanjun > >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > >>> index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > >>> @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, > >>> if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { > >>> if (!res->replay) { > >>> mr = qp->resp.mr; > >>> + WARN_ON(!mr); > >>> qp->resp.mr = NULL; > >>> } else { > >>> mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); > >>> @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, > >>> > >>> rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), > >>> payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); > >>> - if (mr) > >>> - rxe_put(mr); > >>> + rxe_put(mr); > >>> > >>> if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { > >>> u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload > >>> -- > >>> 2.31.1 > >>> > > > > Li is correct that the only way mr could be NULL is if qp->resp.mr == NULL. So the What I am concerned about is if "WARN_ON(!mr);" should be added or not. IMO, if the root cause remains unclear, this should be a problem. Currently this problem is not fixed. It is useless to send a debug statement to the maillist. Zhu Yanjun > 'if (mr)' is not needed if that is the case. The read_reply subroutine is reached > from a new rdma read operation after going through check_rkey or from a previous > rdma read operations from get_req if qp->resp.res != NULL or from a duplicate request > where the previous responder resource is found. In all these cases the mr is set. > Initially in check_rkey where if it can't find the mr it causes an RKEY_VIOLATION. > Thereafter the rkey is stored in the responder resources and looked up for each > packet to get an mr or cause an RKEY_VIOLATION. So the mr can't be NULL. I think > you can leave out the WARN and just drop the if (mr). > > Bob > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-24 2:25 ` Zhu Yanjun @ 2022-10-24 3:15 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-24 14:09 ` Bob Pearson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-24 3:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhu Yanjun, Bob Pearson; +Cc: jgg, leon, linux-rdma, linux-kernel On 24/10/2022 10:25, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>>>> @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >>>>> if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { >>>>> if (!res->replay) { >>>>> mr = qp->resp.mr; >>>>> + WARN_ON(!mr); >>>>> qp->resp.mr = NULL; >>>>> } else { >>>>> mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); >>>>> @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >>>>> >>>>> rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), >>>>> payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); >>>>> - if (mr) >>>>> - rxe_put(mr); >>>>> + rxe_put(mr); >>>>> >>>>> if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { >>>>> u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.31.1 >>>>> >> Li is correct that the only way mr could be NULL is if qp->resp.mr == NULL. So the > What I am concerned about is if "WARN_ON(!mr);" should be added or not. > IMO, if the root cause remains unclear, this should be a problem. > Currently this problem is not fixed. It is useless to send a debug > statement to the maillist. As per Bob's explanation, no 'WARN_ON(!mr)' is needed. I will update the patch soon. > Zhu Yanjun > >> 'if (mr)' is not needed if that is the case. The read_reply subroutine is reached >> from a new rdma read operation after going through check_rkey or from a previous >> rdma read operations from get_req if qp->resp.res != NULL or from a duplicate request >> where the previous responder resource is found. In all these cases the mr is set. >> Initially in check_rkey where if it can't find the mr it causes an RKEY_VIOLATION. >> Thereafter the rkey is stored in the responder resources and looked up for each >> packet to get an mr or cause an RKEY_VIOLATION. So the mr can't be NULL. I think >> you can leave out the WARN and just drop the if (mr). Very thanks for your explanation Thanks Zhijian >> >> Bob >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-24 2:25 ` Zhu Yanjun 2022-10-24 3:15 ` Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-24 14:09 ` Bob Pearson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Bob Pearson @ 2022-10-24 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhu Yanjun; +Cc: Li Zhijian, jgg, leon, linux-rdma, linux-kernel On 10/23/22 21:25, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:05 AM Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 10/21/22 20:09, Li Zhijian wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 21/10/2022 22:39, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>>> Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could >>>>> be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. >>>>> >>>>> I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed >>>>> at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it >>>>> happends. >>>> If I get you correctly, you confronted a problem, >>> Not exactly, I removed the mr checking since i think this checking is not correct. >>> the newly added WARN_ON(!mr) is the only once place where the mr can be NULL but not handled correctly. >>> At least with/without this patch, once WARN_ON(!mr) is triggered, kernel will go something wrong. >>> >>> so i want to place this WARN_ON(!mr) to point to the problem. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Zhijian >>> >>>> but you can not figure it out. >>>> So you send it upstream as a patch? >>>> >>>> I am not sure if it is a good idea. >>>> >>>> Zhu Yanjun >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>>>> index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c >>>>> @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >>>>> if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { >>>>> if (!res->replay) { >>>>> mr = qp->resp.mr; >>>>> + WARN_ON(!mr); >>>>> qp->resp.mr = NULL; >>>>> } else { >>>>> mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); >>>>> @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, >>>>> >>>>> rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), >>>>> payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); >>>>> - if (mr) >>>>> - rxe_put(mr); >>>>> + rxe_put(mr); >>>>> >>>>> if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { >>>>> u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.31.1 >>>>> >>> >> >> Li is correct that the only way mr could be NULL is if qp->resp.mr == NULL. So the > > What I am concerned about is if "WARN_ON(!mr);" should be added or not. > IMO, if the root cause remains unclear, this should be a problem. > Currently this problem is not fixed. It is useless to send a debug > statement to the maillist. Li was fixing a bug that no one ever saw. mr is not NULL in this case. Bob > > Zhu Yanjun > >> 'if (mr)' is not needed if that is the case. The read_reply subroutine is reached >> from a new rdma read operation after going through check_rkey or from a previous >> rdma read operations from get_req if qp->resp.res != NULL or from a duplicate request >> where the previous responder resource is found. In all these cases the mr is set. >> Initially in check_rkey where if it can't find the mr it causes an RKEY_VIOLATION. >> Thereafter the rkey is stored in the responder resources and looked up for each >> packet to get an mr or cause an RKEY_VIOLATION. So the mr can't be NULL. I think >> you can leave out the WARN and just drop the if (mr). >> >> Bob >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing 2022-10-21 7:52 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-21 14:39 ` Zhu Yanjun @ 2022-10-24 3:26 ` Li Zhijian 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Li Zhijian @ 2022-10-24 3:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zyjzyj2000, jgg, leon, linux-rdma; +Cc: linux-kernel Just noticed i didn't post [2/2] successfully, will sent it in next version. On 21/10/2022 15:52, Li Zhijian wrote: > Before the testing, we already passed it to rxe_mr_copy() where mr could > be dereferenced. so this checking is not exactly correct. > > I tried to figure out the details how/when mr could be NULL, but failed > at last. Add a WARN_ON(!mr) to that path to tell us more when it > happends. > > Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> > --- > drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > index ed5a09e86417..218c14fb07c6 100644 > --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > @@ -778,6 +778,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, > if (res->state == rdatm_res_state_new) { > if (!res->replay) { > mr = qp->resp.mr; > + WARN_ON(!mr); > qp->resp.mr = NULL; > } else { > mr = rxe_recheck_mr(qp, res->read.rkey); > @@ -811,8 +812,7 @@ static enum resp_states read_reply(struct rxe_qp *qp, > > rxe_mr_copy(mr, res->read.va, payload_addr(&ack_pkt), > payload, RXE_FROM_MR_OBJ); > - if (mr) > - rxe_put(mr); > + rxe_put(mr); > > if (bth_pad(&ack_pkt)) { > u8 *pad = payload_addr(&ack_pkt) + payload; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-24 20:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-10-21 7:52 [for-next PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/rxe: Remove unnecessary mr testing Li Zhijian 2022-10-21 7:52 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-21 14:39 ` Zhu Yanjun 2022-10-22 1:09 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-23 18:05 ` Bob Pearson 2022-10-24 2:25 ` Zhu Yanjun 2022-10-24 3:15 ` Li Zhijian 2022-10-24 14:09 ` Bob Pearson 2022-10-24 3:26 ` Li Zhijian
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox