Hi,
I just checked IB sepc. It looks like, IB spec in relevant chapter
(11.4.2) doesn't have any requirement for qp_num to be valid in case of
error. Only wr_id and status must be valid.
I think, wr_id and status should be valid in existing implementation.
struct rxe_cqe {
union {
struct ib_wc ibwc;
struct ib_uverbs_wc uibwc;
};
};
In both cases wr_id and status are in the same places
So lines
wc->wr_id = wqe->wr_id;
wc->status = qp->resp.status
set the valid values for rxe too.
But I agree, that at the first glance, the code looks invalid and some
refactoring can be done.
Regards
Sasha
On 25/10/2018 22:40, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> Error completions must still contain a valid wr_id and
> qp_num such that the consumer can rely on. Correctly
> fill these fields in receive error completions.
>
> Reported-by: Walker Benjamin <benjamin.walker@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c
> index aa5833318372..3438f0653df0 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c
> @@ -841,11 +841,16 @@ static enum resp_states do_complete(struct rxe_qp *qp,
>
> memset(&cqe, 0, sizeof(cqe));
>
> - wc->wr_id = wqe->wr_id;
> - wc->status = qp->resp.status;
> - wc->qp = &qp->ibqp;
> + if (qp->rcq->is_user) {
> + uwc->status = qp->resp.status;
> + uwc->qp_num = qp->ibqp.qp_num;
> + uwc->wr_id = wqe->wr_id;
> + } else {
> + wc->status = qp->resp.status;
> + wc->qp = &qp->ibqp;
> + wc->wr_id = wqe->wr_id;
> + }
>
> - /* fields after status are not required for errors */
> if (wc->status == IB_WC_SUCCESS) {
> wc->opcode = (pkt->mask & RXE_IMMDT_MASK &&
> pkt->mask & RXE_WRITE_MASK) ?
>
