From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
Avihai Horon <avihaih@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 2/2] RDMA/mlx5: Allow modifying Relaxed Ordering via fast registration
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 11:57:10 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210527145710.GF1002214@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YK992cLoTRWG30H9@infradead.org>
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:09:13PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 1) qp_access_flags as a bitmask of possible operations on the queue pair
> The way I understood the queue pairs this should really be just bits
> for remote read, remote write and atomics, but a few places also
> mess with memory windows and local write, which seems to be some
> sort of iWarp cludge
Honestly I'm not completely sure what the QP access flags are for
anymore, will have to go look at some point.
> 2) IB_UVERBS_ACCESS_*. These just get checked using ib_check_mr_access
> and then passed into ->reg_user_mr, ->rereg_user_mr and
> ->reg_user_mr_dmabuf
Yes. Using the kernerl flags for those user marked APIs is intended to
simplify the drivers as the user/kernel MR logic should have shared
elements
> 3) in-kernel FRWR uses IB_ACCESS_*, but all users seem to hardcode it
> to IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE | IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ |
> IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_WRITE anyway
So when a ULP is processing a READ it doesn't create a FRWR with
read-only rights? Isn't that security wrong?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-27 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-20 10:13 [PATCH rdma-next v1 0/2] Enable relaxed ordering for ULPs Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-20 10:13 ` [PATCH rdma-next v1 1/2] RDMA: Enable Relaxed Ordering by default for kernel ULPs Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-27 10:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-28 18:27 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-20 10:13 ` [PATCH rdma-next v1 2/2] RDMA/mlx5: Allow modifying Relaxed Ordering via fast registration Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-26 19:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-27 11:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-27 14:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-05-27 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-02 12:16 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-05-26 19:30 ` [PATCH rdma-next v1 0/2] Enable relaxed ordering for ULPs Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-27 8:11 ` David Laight
2021-05-31 18:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-31 21:45 ` David Laight
2021-05-31 22:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210527145710.GF1002214@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=avihaih@nvidia.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox