On 3/6/23 14:51, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 05:15:07PM -0600, Bob Pearson wrote:
>> On 1/19/23 13:18, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:05:07PM -0600, Bob Pearson wrote:
>>>> Correct errors in rxe_param.h caused by extending the range of
>>>> indices for MRs allowing it to overlap the range for MWs. Since
>>>> the driver determines whether an rkey is for an MR or MW by comparing
>>>> the index part of the rkey with these ranges this can cause an
>>>> MR to be incorrectly determined to be an MW.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally the parameters which determine the size of the index
>>>> ranges for MR, MW, QP and SRQ are incorrect since the actual
>>>> number of integers in the range [min, max] is (max - min + 1) not
>>>> (max - min).
>>>>
>>>> This patch corrects these errors.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 0994a1bcd5f7 ("RDMA/rxe: Bump up default maximum values used via uverbs")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_param.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> This
>>>
>>> commit 1aefe5c177c1922119afb4ee443ddd6ac3140b37
>>> Author: Daisuke Matsuda <matsuda-daisuke@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Tue Dec 20 17:08:48 2022 +0900
>>>
>>> RDMA/rxe: Prevent faulty rkey generation
>>>
>>> If you create MRs more than 0x10000 times after loading the module,
>>> responder starts to reply NAKs for RDMA/Atomic operations because of rkey
>>> violation detected in check_rkey(). The root cause is that rkeys are
>>> incremented each time a new MR is created and the value overflows into the
>>> range reserved for MWs.
>>>
>>> This commit also increases the value of RXE_MAX_MW that has been limited
>>> unlike other parameters.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 0994a1bcd5f7 ("RDMA/rxe: Bump up default maximum values used via uverbs")
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221220080848.253785-2-matsuda-daisuke@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Signed-off-by: Daisuke Matsuda <matsuda-daisuke@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Tested-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Li Zhijian <lizhijian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is already in v6.2-rc and conflicts with this patch, it looks like it
>>> is doing the same thing, can you sort it out please?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jason
>>
>> Did this get lost? for-next is now at 6.2-rc3 now and the bug is
>> still in rxe_param.h.
>
> Check again we are at v6.3-rc1 now, if something needs to be fixed
> send a new patch..
>
> Jason
Just checked. It now looks good in for-next.
Thanks
Bob
