On 10/31/2017 7:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:07:53PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
However, I don't think that kernel to libibverbs API should follow the
same path. The centralized entry points to the kernel provides better
enforcement and minimizes system call bloat.
How so? I didn't think selinux intersected with the CQs at all..
I've never worried about the # of verbs entries, we have so many
already.
Not SELinux enforcement, but various copy_{to|from}_user checks, unified
return values, easy folding in case of errors, e.t.c.
It is a matter of personal view and less technical thing. You prefer bazillion
entry points to the kernel and I think that such design good for user-space only,
and mostly not applicable for kernel<->user interfaces.
Even for the user area having a dedicated 'setter' per field might bring
some redundant overhead and limitation. This will prevent the option
from application to modify few fields in one API and resulted in a
system call per field. Also libibverbs and user drivers may need to
maintain some wrapping over the kernel command which in turn might lead
to some extra/duplication of code. I would vote to follow modify
QP/SRQ/WQ by having one API with an 'attr_mask' field as this series has
introduced in both kernel and user.
The matching user space series was published and can be seen at:
https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/pull/238
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
