From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F670C4361B for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61FC23119 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732380AbgLJN4B convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:56:01 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.188]:2525 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728238AbgLJNzy (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:55:54 -0500 Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CsFlk3z8GzQq73; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:54:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggema751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.193) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:55:11 +0800 Received: from dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.195) by dggema751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.193) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:55:11 +0800 Received: from dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.84]) by dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.84]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:55:11 +0800 From: liweihang To: Jason Gunthorpe CC: "dledford@redhat.com" , "leon@kernel.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 for-next 05/11] RDMA/hns: WARN_ON if get a reserved sl from users Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 for-next 05/11] RDMA/hns: WARN_ON if get a reserved sl from users Thread-Index: AQHWyiqFeUZ8XkvfE0u5Kq9Tx0pz1w== Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: <54849771e0724e8eb05757996dca9716@huawei.com> References: <1607078436-26455-1-git-send-email-liweihang@huawei.com> <1607078436-26455-6-git-send-email-liweihang@huawei.com> <20201209210902.GA2001139@nvidia.com> <29da177187e44ffd98a9b834ff3dc5ed@huawei.com> <20201210134516.GY5487@ziepe.ca> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.67.100.165] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 2020/12/10 21:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:00:16AM +0000, liweihang wrote: >> On 2020/12/10 5:09, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:40:30PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote: >>>> According to the RoCE v1 specification, the sl (service level) 0-7 are >>>> mapped directly to priorities 0-7 respectively, sl 8-15 are reserved. The >>>> driver should verify whether the value of sl is larger than 7, if so, an >>>> exception should be returned. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 172505cfa3a8 ("RDMA/hns: Add check for the validity of sl configuration") >>>> Fixes: d6a3627e311c ("RDMA/hns: Optimize wqe buffer set flow for post send") >>>> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li >>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c | 10 +++++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c >>>> index 7a0c1ab..15e1313 100644 >>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c >>>> @@ -433,6 +433,10 @@ static int fill_ud_av(struct hns_roce_v2_ud_send_wqe *ud_sq_wqe, >>>> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_36_TCLASS_S, ah->av.tclass); >>>> roce_set_field(ud_sq_wqe->byte_40, V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_FLOW_LABEL_M, >>>> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_FLOW_LABEL_S, ah->av.flowlabel); >>>> + >>>> + if (WARN_ON(ah->av.sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL)) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>> + >>>> roce_set_field(ud_sq_wqe->byte_40, V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_SL_M, >>>> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_SL_S, ah->av.sl); >>>> >>>> @@ -4609,12 +4613,8 @@ static int hns_roce_v2_set_path(struct ib_qp *ibqp, >>>> memset(qpc_mask->dgid, 0, sizeof(grh->dgid.raw)); >>>> >>>> hr_qp->sl = rdma_ah_get_sl(&attr->ah_attr); >>>> - if (unlikely(hr_qp->sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL)) { >>>> - ibdev_err(ibdev, >>>> - "failed to fill QPC, sl (%d) shouldn't be larger than %d.\n", >>>> - hr_qp->sl, MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL); >>>> + if (WARN_ON(hr_qp->sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL)) >>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> - } >>>> >>>> roce_set_field(context->byte_28_at_fl, V2_QPC_BYTE_28_SL_M, >>>> V2_QPC_BYTE_28_SL_S, hr_qp->sl); >>> >>> Can any of these warn_on's be triggered by user space? That would not >>> be OK >>> >>> Jason >>> >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> Thanks for your comments, I understand that error that can be triggered by >> userspace shouldn't use WARN_ON(). So I shouldn't use WARN_ON() in >> hns_roce_v2_set_path(). >> >> As for the error in process of post_send, you suggested me to warn_on if >> a kernel user try to pass in an illegal opcode. So I guess I should use >> WARN_ON() too in sl's check when filling a UD WQE. Am I right? > > Userspace should not be able to trigger warn_on > > Bad kernel ULPs are OK to trigger warn_on > > Jason > I see, Thank you. Weihang